[Senate Hearing 117-444]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 117-444

                           FUTURE OF SPECTRUM

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MEDIA,
                             AND BROADBAND

                                 OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                      SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                               __________

                             AUGUST 2, 2022
                               __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                             Transportation
                             

                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                             


                Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
55-634 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2024                  


       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                   MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, Chair
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, Ranking
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                 ROY BLUNT, Missouri
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts         TED CRUZ, Texas
GARY PETERS, Michigan                DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             JERRY MORAN, Kansas
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
JON TESTER, Montana                  MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona              TODD YOUNG, Indiana
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada                  MIKE LEE, Utah
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado          SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West 
RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia                 Virginia
                                     RICK SCOTT, Florida
                                     CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming
                       Lila Helms, Staff Director
                 Melissa Porter, Deputy Staff Director
       George Greenwell, Policy Coordinator and Security Manager
                 John Keast, Republican Staff Director
            Crystal Tully, Republican Deputy Staff Director
                      Steven Wall, General Counsel
                                 ------                                

          SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MEDIA, AND BROADBAND

BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico, Chair     JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Ranking
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             ROY BLUNT, Missouri
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      TED CRUZ, Texas
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                 DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts         JERRY MORAN, Kansas
GARY PETERS, Michigan                DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            TODD YOUNG, Indiana
JON TESTER, Montana                  MIKE LEE, Utah
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona              RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada                  SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West 
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado              Virginia
RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia             RICK SCOTT, Florida
                                     CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on August 2, 2022...................................     1
Statement of Senator Lujan.......................................     1
Statement of Senator Wicker......................................     3
Statement of Senator Thune.......................................     5
Statement of Senator Fischer.....................................    37
Statement of Senator Rosen.......................................    39
Statement of Senator Blackburn...................................    40
Statement of Senator Klobuchar...................................    42
Statement of Senator Moran.......................................    44
Statement of Senator Markey......................................    46
Statement of Senator Capito......................................    47
Statement of Senator Hickenlooper................................    49
Statement of Senator Young.......................................    51
Statement of Senator Cantwell....................................    53
Statement of Senator Lee.........................................    55
Statement of Senator Cruz........................................    57
Statement of Senator Sullivan....................................    59

                               Witnesses

Chris Lewis, President and CEO, Public Knowledge.................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Meredith Attwell Baker, President and CEO, CTIA..................    13
    Prepared statement...........................................    14
Andrew Von Ah, Director of Physical Infrastructure, Government 
  Accountability Office..........................................    24
    Prepared statement...........................................    27
Coleman Bazelon, Principal, The Brattle Group....................    31
    Prepared statement...........................................    33

                                Appendix

Response to written questions submitted to Meredith Attwell Baker 
  by:
    Hon. Roger Wicker............................................    69
    Hon. Roy Blunt...............................................    70
    Hon. Marsha Blackburn........................................    71
Response to written questions submitted to Andrew Von Ah by:
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    72
    Hon. Raphael Warnock.........................................    73
    Hon. Ben Ray Lujan...........................................    74
    Hon. Kyrsten Sinema..........................................    74
    Hon. Roger Wicker............................................    75
    Hon. Marsha Blackburn........................................    77

 
                           FUTURE OF SPECTRUM

                              ----------                              


                        TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 2022

                               U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee on Communications, Media, and Broadband,   
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:38 p.m., in 
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Ben Ray 
Lujan, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Lujan [presiding], Cantwell, Klobuchar, 
Blumenthal, Markey, Rosen, Hickenlooper, Thune, Wicker, Blunt, 
Cruz, Fischer, Moran, Sullivan, Blackburn, Young, Lee, Capito, 
and Scott.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BEN RAY LUJAN, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

    Senator Lujan. The hearing on the Subcommittee on 
Communications, Media and Broadband will now come to order. 
Today, the Subcommittee is convening a hearing on the future of 
spectrum. I want to thank Ranking Member Thune and Ranking 
Member of the Full Committee, Roger Wicker, for working to get 
this scheduled and to be here for this important hearing, and 
also to Chair Cantwell for the work that she has done in this 
space, as well as her staff and the staff of the full 
committee.
    The importance of this conversation and having a coming 
together, if you will, of spectrum policy could not be more 
immediate with an upcoming deadline that must be met. Spectrum 
is a limited natural resource, and the challenges are many.
    We have spectrum challenges across the industry, 
Government, technology, policy, and politics. And when we don't 
find solutions, those challenges can become a national crisis. 
And I hope that those last two words get the attention of those 
that they have not yet or don't see the reauthorization in that 
way.
    Licensed and unlicensed spectrum underlies the broadband 
network that enables us to communicate with friends and family, 
work and learn from our homes, and utilize telehealth, but that 
are also used for national security purposes. It matters, and 
it depends so greatly on how these resources are managed and 
how we can coordinate to make better use of them.
    Spectrum helps us respond to floods and wildfires and other 
natural disasters. It even allows us to see the deepest stars 
and explore the origins of our universe through the very large 
array in places like Central New Mexico.
    This hearing will consider the many challenges we face as 
we manage this essential and limited resource. There are many 
things to consider, including commercial challenges in 
identifying privately licensed spectrum bands to ensure that 
supply meets the demand. Bureaucratic challenges between 
Federal agencies, each with critical missions, negotiating how 
to best use the spectrum.
    And technical and engineering challenges, the solutions to 
which might enable more spectrum sharing and require closer 
coordination. We also have policy challenges. Many uses of 
spectrum do not have a clear market value, nor should they. It 
is impossible to put a price on national security, on public 
safety, or on promoting innovation through unlicensed spectrum 
or scientific research.
    And finally, we have political challenges. Spectrum is one 
of the few policy areas under our committee's jurisdiction that 
generates revenue. To date, these auctions have raised over 
$230 billion for the Federal Government. We have important 
decisions to make, not just on spectrum policy, but on how new 
revenue might open doors and support other critical priorities 
in the United States and abroad.
    The authority Congress granted to the Federal 
Communications Commission to conduct spectrum auctions expires 
on September 30. The future of spectrum depends on the 
decisions we make in this committee and the conversations we 
will have today.
    Congress must act to ensure the spectrum use best meets the 
public interest. And I believe spectrum requires--apologize 
here. I believe spectrum revenues should be devoted in part to 
updating our 911 systems and promoting digital equity, building 
on the work of Chair Cantwell and Senator Schatz and Markey 
during the C-band auction.
    But we must also do more to ensure the way we are using and 
allocating spectrum providing equity. Innovative auctions, 
structures, efforts like the CBRS, and tribal priority window 
have demonstrated that spectrum policy can promote competition 
and be tailored to meet the needs of rural areas. Increasing 
participation can allow our tribes and pueblos to exercise 
their sovereignty on the airwaves over tribal lands. I am 
excited by the progress we have already made.
    Last week, the House cleared a bipartisan bill extending 
FCC spectrum auction authority. The bill also restored NTIA as 
the lead agency for spectrum decisions by including my Spectrum 
Innovation Act, which I introduced with Ranking Member Thune 
here in the Senate. And while I support the progress on that 
bill in the House, I believe we must go further.
    Yesterday, a day before this hearing, Chairwoman 
Rosenworcel and Administrator Davidson signed an updated 
memorandum of understanding that structures how their two 
agencies resolve spectrum challenges.
    This MOU reaffirms NTIA's and FCC's roles as the sole 
agencies in charge of managing our spectrum resources. It 
increases coordination and addresses many of the challenges for 
managing broadband and other bands, apologize there, that have 
a significant Federal agency stakeholder.
    Finally, the MOU promotes better coordination and 
emphasizes evidence-based policymaking, something we need more 
of here in Congress. Ranking Member Thune and I structured this 
hearing toward that goal.
    There is a broad interest from our colleagues across the 
U.S. Senate and many who have been working on this issue during 
their entire time in the U.S. Senate.
    Our consensus panel of four witnesses brings together 
experts in the field of spectrum management with many years of 
experience, either managing these resources directly or 
engaging in the broader debate at a national scale.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I want to introduce our witnesses, 
but I am going to go to you first, sir, for an opening 
statement. And I want to thank Mr. Wicker, our Ranking Member 
of the Full Committee, for being here with us to open up the 
hearing.
    And we will welcome the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, 
the Republican Whip, upon his arrival, with Mr. Thune.

                STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI

    Senator Wicker. Great. And yes, we do expect Senator Thune 
to be here very soon. Today, for the first time in more than 2 
years, a subcommittee convenes to discuss the State of spectrum 
policy in the United States.
    So thank you to Chairman Lujan and Senator Thune for 
holding this important hearing. And I welcome our distinguished 
panel of witnesses. I can't wait to hear your testimony. This 
conversation is particularly timely, as the Chair noted, with 
the expiration of the FCC statutory auction authority in less 
than 2 months.
    Spectrum is a critical component of enabling innovation in 
our modern wireless economy. We have seen time and again how 
unleashing spectrum for commercial use generates new cutting 
edge technologies and applications for consumers.
    However, although appetite for commercial spectrum 
continues to grow almost exponentially, there is also growing 
demand from Federal agencies. The resource is scarce and 
effective spectrum management has become essential. Auctions 
have proved to be a winning solution for allocating 
frequencies.
    Not only do auctions provide a market mechanism for 
determining who should receive a license. They also generate 
sufficient revenues for the Treasury, as our distinguished 
chair just stated. Since the advent of spectrum options in 
1993, more than $230 billion has been collected and used for a 
variety of expenditures, including funding FirstNet, reducing 
the Federal--and reducing the Federal deficit.
    However, the FCC statutory authority to conduct auctions is 
set to expire September 30. If we do not act swiftly, the 
agency may lose its ability to award licenses through 
competitive bidding.
    This is especially important with the recent start of an 
auction of frequencies at 2.5 gigahertz. If that auction is 
ongoing, when the authority expires, it could call into 
question the agency's authority to finish the proceeding.
    One of the reasons that spectrum auctions has been so 
successful is bidder certainty. Bidders know they will receive 
the license they bid on under FCC rules. In the time-frame that 
the agency announces any action or inaction that reduces that 
certainty risks depressing the value of spectrum.
    If bidders begin to lose confidence that the FCC will have 
the legal authority to complete an auction, we should expect 
bidding to be affected. Congress can act to ensure that there 
is no lapse in authority and no reason for bidders to doubt. A 
short term extension of auction authority would allow the 
Committee to continue working with stakeholders to develop 
legislation that identifies specific bands for auction in the 
coming years.
    This approach of legislating the auction of particular 
frequencies has proved successful in recent years and would 
give all parties involved the ability to plan ahead. It would 
allow us the time to draft statutory text thoughtfully and 
carefully, without any unnecessary disruption to the FCC's 
duties.
    Identifying specific frequencies for auction, as well as 
timelines and other considerations, would create a path to 
success for the United States. But given the very short time 
for expiration of auction authority, a short-term extension is 
needed. Beyond the extension of auction authority, we should 
look to the expert spectrum management agencies for guidance as 
the Nation continues to strive for leadership in the race to 5G 
and beyond.
    The FCC and the National Telecommunications Information 
Administration have worked with their respective stakeholders 
and each other to make spectrum available for commercial use 
while continuing to seek ways to meet the needs of Federal 
agencies.
    I also want to recognize that although our Federal agencies 
certainly have inherent and important spectrum interests, these 
decisions should be made by the expert agencies tasked by the 
statute with these responsibilities. High profile disputes and 
disagreements about interference and service rules only weaken 
our spectrum management system.
    These concerns should be handled through existing processes 
and should be resolved using technical analysis and data. 
Spectrum policy is complex, but Congress has a role to play in 
shaping it.
    I would urge my colleagues to support a short-term 
extension of auction authority. This will allow the FCC to 
continue its important work while we work with stakeholders to 
develop more comprehensive legislation, laying out a long-term 
pipeline of frequencies for auction.
    I would also hope to work on legislative efforts to improve 
the coordination between Federal agencies, NTIA, and the FCC to 
ensure that there is an open and effective communications. And 
I yield back to you, Mr. Chair.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you very much, Mr. Wicker. Again, the 
Ranking Member of the Full Committee. Thank you for your 
thoughtfulness and your policy approaches in this arena as 
well, Mr. Wicker.
    Next, we will hear from the Ranking Member of the 
Subcommittee, our Republican Whip, for his opening statement, 
Mr. Thune.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JON THUNE, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

    Senator Thune. Thank you, Chairman Lujan, for holding what 
I think is a very timely hearing. In 22 legislative calendar 
days, the FCC's authority to conduct spectrum auction expires, 
and yet the last time this committee held any hearings related 
to spectrum management was in July 2020 when I was serving as 
the Chairman of the Subcommittee. So while I have been 
disappointed the lack of progress on this issue, I hope moving 
forward we can work collaboratively.
    We all know that spectrum is the lifeblood of wireless 
communications. Next generation networks require efficient and 
effective use of low, mid, and high bands of spectrum. And in 
the global race, we deploy--to deploy these networks and 
services, proper management of this limited resource has never 
been more important. It is particularly important for those of 
us in more rural parts of the country.
    If inadequacy of spectrum resources makes 5G less viable, 
it will be the rural areas where it no longer makes sense to 
deploy next generation telecommunications services. Last week, 
the FCC took an important step in bringing 5G services to more 
rural and tribal areas by beginning the auction of the 2.5 
gigahertz band.
    It is my view that Congress should provide a short term 
extension of the FCC's auction authority so that we can ensure 
this auction continues and is completed without any delays. At 
the same time, I believe it is equally important for Congress 
to build upon the success of the MOBILE NOW Act and Beat China 
for 5G Act by developing legislation to keep spectrum in the 
pipeline.
    One such place to start would be legislation Chair Lujan 
and I introduced earlier this year. The Spectrum Innovation Act 
would free up prime mid-band spectrum in the lower three 
gigahertz band, allowing the spectrum to auction for mobile 
services. By enacting a pipeline bill, Congress provides 
regulatory certainty and predictability.
    And when that spectrum is made available, it is essential 
that there are clear rules and recognized rights for spectrum 
users. It is important to note a spectrum pipeline bill will 
take some time. It will require Government agencies, industry, 
and other groups competing for this resource to come together.
    But by doing so, we can make spectrum decisions in the 
interests of our economic and national security. Having led the 
efforts of the MOBILE NOW Act, I know firsthand the complexity 
of this issue and the time it takes to work with stakeholders 
on spectrum legislation. And MOBILE NOW didn't involve general 
auction authority.
    The last time that Congress extended the FCC's general 
auction authority was back in 2012. At that time, Congress 
provided the FCC with specific direction on the bands that 
should be considered for auction, but it also took years to get 
there. Some of the spectrum bands were identified in the FCC's 
National Broadband Plan 2 years earlier.
    Some are the subject of multiple Congressional hearings in 
the 2-years leading to its passage. And some included in 
studies and reports by NTIA and the FCC's Office of Engineering 
and Technology in the years before we extended auction 
authority. It is my hope that this committee can work together 
in a bipartisan manner to develop a larger spectrum package. 
Sound spectrum management also requires proper coordination 
between NTIA, the FCC, and other Federal agencies.
    I was pleased to see the FCC and NTIA reach an agreement to 
update the spectrum coordination processes. It is important 
that this is done regularly, and so I would encourage this 
committee to advance the Improving Spectrum Coordination Act, 
which is legislation I have sponsored with Ranking Member 
Wicker, and Senators Lujan and Blackburn.
    And as more and more Americans rely on connectivity like 
Wi-Fi, we must also recognize the critical role unlicensed 
spectrum plays in the communications landscape. Unlicensed 
spectrum is responsible for transmitting a significant amount 
of the data in our networks and will play a tremendous role in 
the development of the Internet of Things.
    Finally, as we work toward freeing up additional license 
and unlicensed spectrum, we must also take action to remove 
barriers to large scale 5G deployment.
    My STREAMLINE Act, for example, would expedite the 
deployment of the small cells needed for 5G installation while 
respecting the role of State and local governments in making 
deployment decisions.
    And importantly, it would make it more affordable to bring 
5G to rural areas by addressing the costs of small cell 
deployment. So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to discussing all 
of these issues with our panelist today and appreciate all of 
you being here. Thank you.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Thune, and appreciate your 
work on this issue as well, not just in this Senate, but in 
previous years as well. Next, I want to introduce our witnesses 
and then we will hear from them.
    First, we want to welcome Mr. Chris Lewis, who is the CEO 
and President of Public Knowledge, leading one of the 
predominant public advocacy organizations in 
telecommunications, and a former staff at the FCC and here in 
the U.S. Senate.
    Next, the Honorable Meredith Baker, who is the CEO and 
President of CTIA, the wireless association representing the 
private sector's largest users of public spectrum, and former 
Commissioner at the FCC and appointee to NTIA.
    Next we have Mr. Andrew Von Ah, who is the Director of 
physical infrastructure at the Government Accountability Office 
with years of experience evaluating spectrum management over at 
the FCC and the NTIA. Welcome.
    And then we will hear from our fourth witness today, Dr. 
Coleman Bazelon--did I say that correct, Dr. Bazelon? Bazelon, 
I apologize. Dr. Bazelon, who is Principal at The Battle Group 
with expert knowledge of wireless license auctions, spectrum 
management and competition policy, and formerly an analyst at 
CBO who is branding the importance of all of us to get to know 
spectrum policy better.
    So I appreciate your reminder today, sir, and I look 
forward to your testimony here as well. Mr. Lewis, the floor is 
yours for 5 minutes.

         STATEMENT OF CHRIS LEWIS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 
                        PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE

    Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Thune, 
Ranking Member Wicker. Thank you for having me here. In the 
brief time I have, I would like to summarize four guideposts 
for national spectrum policy strategy that can drive innovation 
and promote quality access to communications for all.
    The first guidepost is that we should center the public 
interest objectives set by Congress in our National Spectrum 
Strategy. In the Telecommunications Act, Congress directed the 
FCC to design spectrum auctions with safeguards to protect the 
public interest and fulfill the goals of its foundational 
purpose to make robust communications service available for all 
Americans.
    The FCC's public interest objectives included promoting 
competition and economic opportunity, preventing excessive 
consolidations, providing opportunities for small businesses, 
especially minority and women-owned businesses, and ensuring 
there are limited spectrum airwaves effectively and efficiently 
to serve the public's communications needs. We need Congress, 
the FCC, and NTIA to think creatively about how to best advance 
all of these objectives.
    For example, rural and tribal areas can benefit from small 
but creative policies. Just last month, as the Ranking Member 
mentioned, Chairwoman Rosenworcel modified the FCC's spectrum 
licensing rules to increase spectrum access for small carriers 
and tribal nations. Congress could further close the access gap 
in tribal areas where the need is greatest with simple 
direction to the FCC.
    Could mandate expanded use of tribal windows and auction 
rules, or it could mandate the use of CBRS style spectrum 
sharing for generalized, authorized access systems for all 
Federal spectrum on tribal lands. Guidepost number two is that 
we must adopt a balanced approach in spectrum access models.
    We are in the midst of a connectivity revolution, and the 
average number of connected devices per home has risen from 11 
in 2019 to 25 in 2021. These are smart TVs, doorbells, even 
washing machines that now rely on spectrum and mostly 
unlicensed spectrum. Even licensed services increasingly rely 
on unlicensed technology to offload their data on their 
congested airwaves.
    And the unlicensed spectrum innovation known as Wi-Fi, is 
so ubiquitous that most Americans think of it as synonymous 
with at home broadband. The demand on unlicensed and licensed 
spectrum underscores just how critical using a mix of access 
regimes is to meet national connectivity demands.
    Unfortunately, there are very few spectrum greenfield 
opportunities remaining. Every spectrum stakeholder must work 
together to enhance efficiency. The success of CBRS as a 
sharing regime demonstrates that as long as we are willing to 
follow the engineering facts and data where it leads, future 
spectrum band plans can create more opportunity for innovation 
and competition through a balance of shared license and 
unlicensed allocations.
    Number three, we should commit to a long term spectrum 
plan. Thanks to the bipartisan efforts of Congress, the Trump 
Administration, and the Biden Administration, wireless 
providers now have access to sufficient spectrum to deploy 
state-of-the-art 5G systems. Even though the industry is 
already looking to 6G and Wi-Fi 7, standards for these systems 
are still years away.
    Our 5G race with China now relies on carriers spending 
their money to deploy networks, not on new spectrum auctions. 
On both the industry side and Federal side, now is the time to 
step back and carefully plan for the future. An 18-month 
extension of auction authority will not allow the FCC and NTIA 
to do that, careful planning.
    A long-term commitment by signaling that the FCC will have 
future auctions can give agencies and private stakeholders the 
nudge to develop thoughtful plans for the future of spectrum 
commercialization.
    Congress could even direct the NTIA to issue a report that 
identifies potential bands and how they may be structure the 
commercial use, seeking to find the right balance between 
licensed and unlicensed.
    And finally, number four, we must prioritize public 
interest needs when spending public revenue for auctions--from 
auctions. The reality is that there are several national 
priorities in communications policy that private investment 
either won't or can't fund.
    Digital equity programs help knock down barriers to 
broadband adoption and help communities make greater use of 
their connectivity. Congress provided some funding for these 
efforts in the broadband infrastructure package, the bipartisan 
infrastructure package. But a more sustainable source of 
funding is needed.
    Public Knowledge supports the Airways for Equity 
Initiative, which proposes setting aside spectrum auction 
revenues to fund digital inclusion efforts, completing next gen 
911, finishing the work of rip and replace, and other proposals 
that have also received bipartisan support as public interest 
funding needs, and they should be public interest funding 
needs.
    The bottom line is that these public interest objectives 
can and should be earmarked to be paid first from revenue 
auctions or auction revenues, using the public dollars to 
promote the health of the sector and help connect all Americans 
to critical telecommunications services. Thank you, and I look 
forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lewis follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Chris Lewis, President and CEO, Public Knowledge
    Chairman Lujan, Ranking Member Thune: Thank you for inviting me to 
testify on this important topic. My name is Chris Lewis and I am the 
President and CEO of Public Knowledge, an organization that is 
dedicated to promoting freedom of expression, an open internet, and 
access to affordable communications tools and creative works.\1\ Since 
Congress first authorized auctions almost 30 years ago, America's 
leadership in spectrum policy innovations has helped drive the mobile 
sector worldwide. But, as they say in the financial sector, past 
performance is not necessarily an indicator of future results. So, how 
do we strengthen our national spectrum policy? We need to focus on 
continuing to innovate spectrum access models that serve the public's 
interest by:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ I would like to thank my colleagues at Public Knowledge for 
their excellent work in preparing me to testify today, especially Greg 
Guice, Harold Feld, Kathleen Burke, Shiva Stella, and Jenna Leventoff.

  1.  Grounding our spectrum policy in the public interest objectives 
        that Congress outlined for the FCC, including ensuring 
        competition, innovation, opportunities for women and minority-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        owned businesses, and efficient use;

  2.  Allowing innovators to thrive by adopting a balanced spectrum 
        approach that makes spectrum available for more than just 
        incumbent providers--including unlicensed, licensed, sharing, 
        and other diverse access models;

  3.  Extending the FCC's auction authority for a meaningful timeframe, 
        well beyond 18 months. Successful spectrum policy needs long-
        term planning--not a temporary approach that prevents spectrum 
        leadership from making spectrum decisions that serve the public 
        interest; and

  4.  Investing auction revenues, which are ultimately repaid through 
        consumer fees to mobile providers, in the country's public 
        interest objectives to promote the health of the sector and 
        help connect all Americans to critical telecommunications 
        services.
Focusing on Public Interest Objectives
    As this Committee reviews how best to strengthen our national 
spectrum policy, it is critical to start with the principles of our 
auction policy--promoting the public interest objectives Congress set 
out for the FCC. In Section 309(j)(3), Congress directed the FCC to 
design spectrum auctions ``with safeguards to protect the public 
interest'' and fulfill the goals of its foundational purpose to make 
robust communications services available to all Americans. The FCC's 
public interest objectives, enumerated by Congress, include promoting 
competition and economic opportunity; ensuring all Americans can access 
new and innovative technologies; preventing excessive consolidation in 
the telecom sector; providing opportunities for small businesses, rural 
telephone companies, and minority and women-owned businesses to 
compete; and ensuring that our limited spectrum airwaves efficiently 
and intensively serve the public's communication needs.
    The FCC can achieve these objectives through auction design and 
specific policies intended to advance greater opportunities for diverse 
licensees and spectrum users. In the past, the FCC has used tools such 
as spectrum caps, smaller licensing areas, and bidding credits to 
promote competition and economic opportunities for small businesses, 
rural communities, and Tribal Nations. Unfortunately, as the wireless 
market has matured, these tools have become increasingly less 
effective. We need to review these and newer ways to achieve these 
important goals.
    For example, just last month, Chairwoman Rosenworcel modified the 
FCC's spectrum licensing and leasing rules to increase spectrum access 
for small carriers and Tribal Nations.\2\ By allowing licensees to 
partition portions of their licensed areas to certain Tribal or rural 
entities, the Enhanced Competition and Incentive Program (ECIP) hopes 
to promote greater competition and increase access to advanced wireless 
services in rural and Tribal areas. Only time will tell how effective 
this is, but the aims of the ECIP are squarely on point. We have known 
for some time that Tribal connectivity lags well behind the rest of the 
country. Often wireless providers can meet their buildout requirements 
without providing service to the Tribal lands in their license areas. 
The ECIP program provides a mechanism to narrow the tribal connectivity 
gap by allowing Tribal Nations to negotiate for access to the spectrum 
covering their lands. The ECIP is a small step in the right direction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Partitioning, Disaggregation, and Leasing of Spectrum, Report 
and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket 
No. 19-38, FCC 22-53 (July 18, 2022). Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
Pub. L. No. 115-141, Division P (RAY BAUM'S Act of 2018), Title VI 
(MOBILE NOW Act), Sec. 601 et seq. (2018) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 1501-1512).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I will suggest two proposals that could directly improve spectrum 
access on rural Tribal lands that do not require any changes to the 
underlying authority of any Federal agency--simply a command from 
Congress that the FCC and NTIA use this authority. The first proposal 
builds on the ``Tribal window'' created by the FCC prior to the auction 
of 2.5 GHz licenses. Under this program, Tribes on Federally recognized 
rural tribal lands were permitted to apply for licenses covering their 
Tribal lands. To date, the FCC has distributed 335 licenses covering a 
combined 350 different Tribes in over 30 states.\3\ Congress should 
require that prior to any future commercial auction of spectrum, the 
FCC create a similar window for Tribes to apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Public Notice, ``Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Waives 2.5 
GHz Rural Tribal Window Specific Interim and Final Performance 
Deadlines,'' WTB DA 22-730 (Rel. July 8, 2022). Available at: https://
www.fcc.gov/document/25-ghz-rural-tribal-window-extension-performance-
deadlines
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    My second suggestion builds on the highly successful CBRS 
framework. The 3.5 GHz band is primarily allocated for Federal use. 
Working together, the FCC and NTIA created a system that allows users 
``general authorized access'' to this Federal spectrum while protecting 
the primacy of Federal users. Congress should order the FCC and NTIA to 
explore extending CBRS-style spectrum sharing for Native Americans on 
Tribal lands. This would recognize the unique Trust Relationship 
between Federal agencies and Tribal governments, restore sovereignty to 
Tribes over the ``public airwaves'' under Tribal jurisdiction, and 
promote digital inclusion and economic opportunities for Native 
Americans.
    In striving to achieve greater participation throughout the 
wireless ecosystem by minority and women-owned businesses, the 
Commission should be not only looking at how auction design could be 
used to encourage greater participation, but as the as the National 
Urban League recently testified, ``spectrum auction winners should be 
encouraged or incentivized to hire from underrepresented communities 
beyond entry level positions, establish diversity hiring goals, and 
increase supplier diversity.'' \4\ Finding potential solutions to this 
challenge will hopefully be an integral part of the FCC's 
Communications Equity and Diversity Council that Chairwoman Rosenworcel 
recently re-chartered.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Strengthening our Communications Networks: Legislation to 
Connect and Protect, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, 
House Committee on Energy and Commerce (May 24, 2022).
    \5\ Communications Equity and Diversity Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Achieving the goal Congress set for the FCC of connecting all 
Americans, requires spectrum policies that primarily focus on achieving 
public interest objectives and promote opportunities for Tribal 
Nations, minority and women owned businesses, and rural communities. We 
need Congress, the FCC and NTIA to think creatively about how best to 
advance these objectives.
We Need to Pursue A Balanced Spectrum Policy Approach
    We are in the midst of a connectivity revolution--the number of 
connected devices per home rose from 11 in 2019 to 25 in 2021--a growth 
of over 100 percent in three years.\6\ Televisions, watches, earbuds, 
speakers, doorbells--even washing machines and refrigerators--now rely 
on spectrum. Most of these ``smart'' devices rely on unlicensed 
spectrum. Even licensed services increasingly rely on unlicensed 
technology to offload data on their own congested airwaves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Connectivity and Mobile Trends Survey: How the Pandemic Has 
Stress Tested the Crowded Digital Home, Deloitte Center for Technology, 
Media & Telecommunications (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similarly, demand for Internet access has continued to grow. In a 
report released by the FCC earlier this year, overall Internet 
connections (fixed and mobile) increased by about 4.7 percent in 2019 
to 449 million; mobile connectivity increased by 5.1 percent to 336 
million.\7\ On average, consumers spend five hours a day on their 
mobile devices.\8\ As more and more devices can only connect to the 
Internet through Wi-Fi, even wireline services now rely on unlicensed 
spectrum. Wi-Fi is so ubiquitous that for most Americans it is 
synonymous with at home broadband.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Internet Access Service: Status as of June 30, 2019, Federal 
Communications Commission, Industry Analysis Div., Office of Economics 
and Analytics (Mar. 9, 2022).
    \8\ 45 Mobile Internet Stats You Need to Know (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The demand on unlicensed and licensed spectrum underscores just how 
critical using a mix of access regimes is to meet the connectivity 
demands of our Nation. Unfortunately, there are very few spectrum 
``greenfield'' opportunities remaining. As more and more services are 
packed closer together, ensuring efficient spectrum use is more 
critical than ever. Every spectrum stakeholder must work together to 
enhance efficiency.
    The Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) proceeding demonstrates 
how technology, engineering, and committed policymakers can 
successfully provide efficient access to spectrum for many different 
uses in a single spectrum. In the CBRS band, the FCC adopted a three-
tiered access regime that protects ongoing incumbent uses (military 
radar) while creating opportunities for commercial licensed services 
(priority access licenses or PALs)\9\ and allows General Authorized 
Access to frequencies when they are not in use).\10\ These diverse uses 
are coordinated through an automated frequency coordinator known as the 
Spectrum Access System, which relies on sensing technology to detect 
when frequencies are in use in real-time.\11\ This framework allows for 
a much higher utilization of the band than a single access regime could 
have. With over 150,000 network nodes deployed in CBRS and no reported 
cases of interference, this type of efficient sharing regime works.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ 47 C.F.R.Sec. 96.25.
    \10\ 47 C.F.R. Sec. 96.35.
    \11\ 47 C.F.R. Sec. 96.53.
    \12\ Taking Stock of Spectrum Sharing, John Leibovitz and Ruth 
Milkman (Sept. 2021). This paper provides a very thorough and 
thoughtful set of policy recommendations for considering more spectrum 
sharing opportunities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The CBRS takeaway is that so long as policymakers are open to the 
full suite of access regimes, we can find ways to efficiently use all 
large swaths of spectrum. Consider the lower 3 GHz band, a multi-tiered 
sharing regime can provide an alternative to the ``auction it all-or-
nothing'' mentality. A balanced approach to the lower 3GHz band would 
recognize DOD's spectrum needs. NTIA should work with the FCC to ensure 
those needs are accurately accounted for as proposals for repurposing 
Federal spectrum move forward. Similar issues are likely to emerge in 
other bands, like the 7 GHz band, where incumbent government operations 
are spread throughout the band. An in-depth evaluation of 7 GHz and 
many other spectrum bands may reveal that the most efficient and 
intensive approach to opening up spectrum is through an unlicensed or a 
mixed approach, while preserving vital national security concerns. We 
should be willing to follow the facts and data where they lead.
    Even beyond these constructs, there are still other hybrid 
approaches we have yet to explore and we need to empower policymakers 
to pursue them. For example, the FCC is currently reviewing the 
potential uses of the 12 GHz band. By authorizing an unlicensed 
underlay and expanding existing one-way data service to include mobile 
broadband services, the Commission can promote competition in the 
mobile space, provide greater access to spectrum for rural broadband, 
and create the broad channels of unlicensed spectrum necessary for Wi-
Fi 7. Public Knowledge believes the Commission can authorize these 
additional uses without compromising existing satellite TV and 
broadband satellite uses, creating a win-win solution for everyone and 
ensuring the 12 GHz band is put to its most ``efficient and intensive 
use.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz, WT Docket No. 20-
443; Expanding Flexible Use in Mid-Band Spectrum, 3.7-24 GHz, GN Docket 
17-183, 36 FCC Rcd. 606 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affirmative case for a longer extension--Spectrum is a Vital Public 
        Asset, Not an ATM
    A balanced approach to spectrum policy that focuses on facts, not 
the politics of the day, is strengthened with a long-term vision. 
Pursuing long-term vision requires a long-term commitment to the FCC's 
auction authority. Eighteen months is well short of the long-term 
commitment we need. Limiting the FCC's auction authority to a time-
frame that prevents it from conducting even a single auction is 
unbalanced, short-term thinking. It does not promote the best and most 
efficient use of this valuable public resource. It treats spectrum as 
nothing more than an ATM. Instead, auctions should serve as one of many 
tools that the FCC can use to secure a sustainable wireless future for 
America.
    Effective interagency spectrum coordination is another critical 
aspect of ensuring that our airwaves serve the public. Public Knowledge 
is very encouraged by the strong leadership of both FCC Chairwoman 
Rosenworcel and NTIA Administrator Davidson in re-energizing the 
interagency coordination process. When agencies work together, it 
provides an opportunity for all stakeholders to participate in a data-
driven process that helps the FCC navigate complex spectrum decisions 
and make evidence-driven decisions about our limited airwaves. We 
applaud the FCC and NTIA's commitments to re-establish high-level 
meetings; update their Memorandum of Understanding, recommit to using 
an evidence-based spectrum compatibility analysis; and develop a 
strong, sustainable, national spectrum policy that meets the growing 
needs of both Federal and non-federal users. Successfully creating a 
robust national spectrum plan will require commitments from the whole 
government, including Federal agencies and Congress. Congress can best 
demonstrate its commitment to a successful national spectrum plan 
through a longer reauthorization time-frame that does not focus 
primarily on mandating the next auction.
    We need to recognize that this is the most opportune time to give 
the FCC, NTIA, and other Federal agencies breathing room to develop a 
balanced spectrum policy that can provide for our future needs while 
encouraging innovation in new spectrum management techniques. For 
example, NTIA is pursuing incumbent informing capabilities, which can 
build upon and complement the environmental sensing capability system 
used in the CBRS band. Thanks to the bipartisan efforts of Congress, 
the work of the Trump Administration, and the continuing work of the 
Biden Administration, wireless providers now have access to sufficient 
spectrum to deploy state-of-the-art 5G systems. Even though the 
industry is already looking ahead to 6G and Wi-Fi 7, the standards for 
these systems are still years in the future. The truth is that we have 
no real spectrum crunch. Our 5G race with China now relies on carriers 
spending their money to deploy networks, not on new spectrum auctions. 
On both the industry side and the Federal side, now is the time to 
step-back and carefully plan for the future.
    A long-term commitment to the FCC's spectrum auction authority 
empowers government entities to develop a pipeline of spectrum that 
supports our Nation's long-term communications goals. By signaling that 
the FCC will have future auctions, without mandating their timeline, 
Congress can ``nudge'' agencies and private stakeholders to develop 
thoughtfully considered plans for the future of spectrum 
commercialization (sharing, unlicensed, licensed). An 18-month time-
frame is more appropriate for issuing a report than putting together an 
auction. Congress could direct the NTIA to issue a report that 
identifies potential bands and how they may be structured for 
commercial use, seeking to find the right balance between licensed and 
unlicensed. Since the spectrum map was last updated in 2016, such a 
report would be invaluable in helping the FCC and Congress make 
informed spectrum decisions that will help advance our Nation's 
communication needs.
    Having (and taking) the time to develop a national spectrum policy 
that properly engages all stakeholders is important. The licensing and 
spectrum distribution models we use today will lock us into specific 
uses and business models for the foreseeable future. The old cliche of 
``measure twice, cut once'' applies in spectrum planning as well as 
home improvement. Now is the time to make sure Federal agencies have 
the right tools and enough time to use those tools properly.
Reinvesting Auction Proceeds in the Communications Sector Where the 
        Private Sector Can't, or Won't
    So far I have not focused on or said anything about maximizing the 
proceeds that we derive from auctions because, as I explained earlier, 
the FCC's core spectrum responsibility is to ensure that every 
allocation serves ``the public interest, convenience, and necessity.'' 
As Congress looks at strengthening our national spectrum policy, a good 
way to meet this responsibility is to invest auction revenues in public 
interest objectives that private investment can't, or won't fund. One 
way to do that is for Congress to designate funding for important 
infrastructure needs. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle 
have previously expressed support for using auction proceeds for public 
interest endeavors, such as completing NG-911, promoting rural and 
Tribal broadband access, meeting our Nation's education and telehealth 
needs, and finishing the work on rip-and-replace.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Investing in America's Digital Infrastructure Act , S. 2956 
(116th Cong., 1st Sess.) (2019); Spectrum Management and Allocation for 
Taxpayers Act , S. 3246 (116th Cong, 2d Sess.) (2020); 5G Spectrum Act, 
S. 2881 (116th Cong., 1st Sess.) (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chairman Lujan, building on the work of Chairwoman Cantwell and 
Senators Schatz and Markey, recently began working to provide long-term 
funding for digital equity and inclusion. We know that beyond access 
and affordability, barriers to adoption, including digital literacy, 
skills training, and device access, prevent a large number of families 
from connecting.\15\ There are more than double the number of people 
that technically have access to broadband, but cannot actually make use 
of it, than there are people that simply lack access to a broadband 
connection.\16\ Digital equity programs help knock down those barriers 
to adoption and help communities make greater use of their 
connectivity. Congress provided some funding in the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act for these efforts, but a more sustainable 
source of funding is needed to advance these important equity goals. 
Public Knowledge recently joined with other public interest 
organizations to launch the ``Airwaves for Equity'' initiative, which 
proposes setting aside spectrum auction revenues to fund digital 
inclusion efforts.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Schwartzbach, Kevin, Addressing Digital Literacy and Other 
Reasons for Non-Adoption of Broadband, SUNY Rockefeller Institute of 
Government (``Sixteen percent of working-age adults (16 to 65 years 
old) are not digitally literate . . . While only 11 percent of white 
adults are digitally illiterate, this rate is much higher among Black 
(22 percent) and Hispanic adults (35 percent). Moreover, a lower 
percentage of native-born adults (13 percent) are digitally illiterate 
compared to foreign-born adults (36 percent). Additionally, there are 
lower rates of digital illiteracy among younger adults (8 percent for 
those aged 16 to 24, for example) than older adults (28 percent for 
those aged 55 to 65, for example). Much like adoption rates, the 
largest disparities are found between those with different levels of 
education. While only 5 percent of adults with an associate's degree or 
higher are digitally illiterate, this rate stands at 41 percent for 
adults without a high school degree.'') (July 8, 2022).
    \16\ National Urban League, The Lewis Latimer Plan for Digital 
Equity and Inclusion (2021).
    \17\ See Airwavesforequity.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reinvesting auction proceeds in public interest telecommunication 
efforts is critical and has enjoyed bipartisan support. We urge members 
of this Committee to determine on a bipartisan basis how to best 
structure funding for these public interest needs.
Conclusion
    Strengthening our national spectrum policy is important work. By 
focusing on the
    long-term public interest objectives Congress set out for the FCC 
and NTIA, we can improve our national telecommunications system by 
increasing competition through promoting opportunities for minority and 
women owned businesses, advancing innovation with a balanced approach 
to spectrum, and ensuring that our limited airwaves are efficiently and 
intensively used. Giving the FCC and other policymakers the time and 
tools they need to develop a spectrum plan that meets these objectives 
is essential. Congress can help facilitate this critical planning by 
making a long-term commitment to the FCC's auction authority and meet 
the increasing needs of the public by earmarking auction revenues to 
public interest connectivity needs. Doing so will help ensure that all 
Americans are able to connect to critical communication services.

    Senator Lujan. Next, we will hear from the--[technical 
problems]--our friend and Commissioner, Ms. Baker.

        STATEMENT OF MEREDITH ATTWELL BAKER, PRESIDENT 
                         AND CEO, CTIA

    Ms. Baker. Good afternoon, and thank you, Chairman Lujan, 
Ranking Member Thune, and Ranking Member Wicker. And thanks to 
all of you for picking my favorite topic, spectrum. I applaud 
your leadership from MOBILE NOW to the Spectrum Innovation Act. 
We lead the world in wireless thanks to you.
    And we need this committee's leadership now more than ever. 
We have the opportunity to drive next generation leadership in 
5G and the industries of the future with a national commitment 
to spectrum policy built on greater licensed mid-band access. I 
will start with the good news.
    I testified before this committee in 2019 about what 5G 
could be. I am happy to be back today to talk about what 5G is. 
Most importantly, 5G is here. 5G is being deployed across our 
country almost twice as fast as 4G. Every year, we invest $30 
billion into our Nation's infrastructure. Thanks to that 
investment, 5G will drive $1.5 trillion more into our economy 
and over 4 million new jobs.
    5G will be the platform for tomorrow's innovation. 
Accenture found that 5G will have the impact of removing 72 
million cars from the road. GM is using 5G to re-imagine 
manufacturing. The VA is utilizing 5G to better care for our 
veterans. 5G is also about greater competition. The fastest 
growing home broadband company is a wireless provider and 5G 
home will be key in closing the digital divide.
    We also know that the job is not complete. 5G goes further 
and faster every day. We need to keep building in New Mexico, 
South Dakota, and across the Nation. This is about opportunity 
and equity. To do all of this, we need your help, and we need 
more spectrum. Three items stand out in my mind.
    Number one, spectrum auctions fuel all of this. In the last 
3 years alone, we have invested over $115 billion in new mid-
band spectrum. The challenge is FCC's statutory authority to 
conduct auctions expires in 22 legislative days. We need to 
provide the FCC the authority to hold future spectrum auctions.
    The lessons of your prior extension strongly favor an 
approach that preserves your key Congressional role in spectrum 
policy by packaging authority with designated future auctions. 
The last extension explicitly directed the FCC to hold three 
separate auctions.
    That is why we endorse the House's bipartisan approach to 
extend FCC authority for 18 months to give all stakeholders the 
time to contribute toward a new spectrum pipeline. And that 
pipeline is number two. The 2.5 gigahertz auction happening 
right now is the last defined auction.
    The cupboard is bare, and this committee is uniquely 
situated to address the shortfall and define the next set of 
auctions. I believe we all have the same objective, a balanced 
approach that enables Government agencies to meet their 
missions while expanding commercial access.
    Today, we are out of balance in the mid-band. Roughly two-
thirds is held by the Government. Maximizing the amount of 
commercial access in the 3 gigahertz, 4 gigahertz, and 7 
gigahertz bands should be our immediate focus. We strongly 
support Chair Lujan and Ranking Member Thune's Spectrum 
Innovation Act that would immediately address access in the 
lower three gigahertz.
    Importantly, by identifying specific auctions, this 
committee would also then have the opportunity to fund key 
priorities from NG 911 to rip and replace. Number three goes to 
interagency coordination. We need to empower the FCC and the 
NTIA to adjudicate spectrum matters.
    We have strong leaders in place with Chairwoman Rosenworcel 
and Administrator Davidson, and I applaud their work to enhance 
coordination and improve spectrum management. I thank you all 
for holding this hearing and focusing on the critical spectrum 
issues that can create real opportunities for all Americans.
    I also urge this committee to engage on the proposed 
corporate minimum taxes effect on spectrum. This would be a 15 
percent tax on spectrum holdings that could undermine all of 
our work that we are doing on spectrum policy.
    Spectrum should really be treated no different than any 
other asset in our Nation's infrastructure. I look forward to 
your questions. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Baker follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Meredith Attwell Baker, President and CEO, CTIA
    Chairman Lujan, Ranking Member Thune, members of the Committee, on 
behalf of CTIA and the wireless industry, thank you for the opportunity 
to testify today.
    CTIA commends this Committee's bipartisan commitment to crafting 
sound spectrum policy for our Nation's future, with achievements like 
the MOBILE NOW Act and the promise of your current legislation, the 
Spectrum Innovation Act. I especially want to recognize your focus on 
identifying and repurposing spectrum for 5G. The United States leads 
the world in wireless--both licensed and unlicensed--thanks to your 
longstanding attention to spectrum.
    And we need your leadership again, now more than ever. We have the 
opportunity to drive next-generation 5G and the industries of the 
future with a clear national commitment to spectrum policy built on 
mid-band spectrum with a focus on licensed access.
    This afternoon I'll address three priority issues: we need to re-up 
the FCC's auction authority--due to expire next month--to maintain and 
extend U.S. spectrum leadership; we should replenish the spectrum 
pipeline, which runs dry at the close of the 2.5 GHz auction currently 
underway; and we should empower the FCC and NTIA to enhance interagency 
coordination and make interagency spectrum decisions in the best 
interests of our Nation.
    But first, let's recap the extraordinary benefits that 5G is 
delivering.
5G's Striking Impact on the Broadband Marketplace and Our Nation
    I testified before this Committee in 2019 about what 5G could be. 
The first 5G networks had just launched across ten states. I'm pleased 
to be back to talk about what 5G is today.
    5G covers 310 million Americans, and we're deploying it across the 
country nearly twice as fast as 4G. More cell sites have been built in 
the past three years than in the previous seven years combined--driving 
5G deployments, expanding coverage and capacity, and strengthening 
network resiliency.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The wide availability of 5G is the result of record-breaking 
investment. Wireless providers invested more than $60 billion to build 
out 5G in the past two years--in 2020 alone, U.S. wireless investment 
accounted for 20 percent of the world's total mobile capital 
expenditures even though the U.S. has just 4 percent of the world's 
population. And at a time of increasing focus on the Nation's economy, 
5G will add $1.5 trillion to the U.S. GDP and 4.5 million new American 
jobs this decade according to the Boston Consulting Group.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Wireless is also bucking the inflationary trends in our Nation. 
While the prices of many goods and services we rely on are on the rise, 
wireless service and smartphones stand out as two of the things that 
are actually cheaper year-over-year. I'm very proud of our industry's 
ability to deliver next-generation services and value to American 
households.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    We are now in the beginning of the 5G decade, and 5G is already 
proving to be a platform for stunning innovation and problem solving. 
Accenture recently found that 5G-related innovation will drive a 20 
percent contribution towards the Nation's carbon reduction targets--the 
equivalent of taking 72 million cars off the road for a year. GM is 
using 5G to re-imagine manufacturing in the U.S. And the VA is using 5G 
to improve health care for our veterans.
    5G home broadband is also now driving greater competition for 
residences and businesses. The fastest growing home broadband company 
is a wireless provider. Today 5G fixed wireless is available to tens of 
millions of homes and looking ahead 5G home broadband will reach over 
200 million households by 2025.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    And yet even with these projections, we have more work to do. 5G 
goes further and faster every day. We need to keep building in New 
Mexico and South Dakota and across the Nation. This is about 
opportunity and equity. To that end, Congress has funded unprecedented 
sums to build out broadband to all unserved and underserved locations 
across the nation--and 5G home broadband will be essential to this 
mission. 5G home broadband is a scalable, cost-effective solution that 
can extend the reach of these Federal dollars and close the digital 
divide.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Of course, all of the benefits that 5G is delivering in the U.S.--
expanding digital inclusion, economic growth, job creation, smart 
cities, and improvements in public safety, health care, and our 
environment--is predicated on the availability of spectrum.
    And there is more to do on that front.
Americans' Growing Demand for Wireless and the Need for More Mid-Band 
        Spectrum
    With a 5x increase in U.S. mobile data traffic projected between 
2020 and 2027, the U.S. needs to free up additional spectrum, 
especially full-power, licensed mid-band spectrum, to meet growing 
demand.
    As this Committee knows well, mid-band spectrum is the ``sweet 
spot'' for spectrum innovation. It combines high speeds over a broad 
coverage area, making sure no one gets left out of the new 5G Economy. 
It is a key input for 5G.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Last year, the FCC conducted two auctions for full-power mid-band 
spectrum, one for C-Band spectrum at 3.7 GHz and one for the 3.45 GHz 
band. Together, these two auctions raised over $102 billion in winning 
bids, reflecting the extraordinary demand for exclusive-use, commercial 
full-power, mid-band spectrum. C-Band deployments launched in January 
of this year and overnight speeds increased substantially. The 3 GHz 
band will be the backbone of wireless investment over the next few 
years. We need more of it--and more mid-band spectrum generally--for 
full-power, licensed spectrum.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]T>

    Contrast the C-Band and the 3.45 GHz band with the CBRS spectrum 
that sits between the two: CBRS spectrum sold at auction for less than 
a quarter the amount of C-Band based on a per-MHz-PoP basis, due 
primarily to far lower authorized power levels and a complicated 
sharing structure. CBRS requires 5x as many cell sites for coverage in 
suburban areas, and at least 7x as many in rural areas--significantly 
increasing costs, the time to deploy, and slowing 5G network buildout. 
The CBRS sharing regime also took about 8 years from FCC proposal to 
auction, far longer than C-Band (3 years) and 3.45 GHz (2 years).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    In the meantime, other nations understand that global leadership in 
wireless--and economic growth and jobs in the industries of tomorrow--
hinge on access to prime spectrum. Leading nations around the world 
are, on average, making available more than twice as much licensed mid-
band spectrum--from 3-7 GHz--by the end of 2022 than we will have in 
the U.S. (accounting for C-Band Phase 1, the 3.45 GHz band, and CBRS). 
America is playing catch-up, but with the right policies in place we 
can maintain our global leadership in wireless.
Three Recommendations to Maintain U.S. Wireless Leadership and Enable 
        Cutting Edge Wireless Services for the American People
    I commend this Committee for its ongoing commitment to advancing 
U.S. wireless interests, and we need your continued leadership now more 
than ever. I have three recommendations for Congress: re-up the FCC's 
auction authority; replenish the spectrum pipeline; and revitalize 
interagency coordination. With these actions, Congress will put in 
place the building blocks to sustain the U.S. as the global leader in 
wireless.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Re-up the FCC's Auction Authority. The FCC's auction authority is 
slated to expire on September 30, 2022, and reauthorization is key to 
maintaining America's wireless leadership.
    Since Congress first authorized the FCC to conduct spectrum 
auctions back in 1993--the first-ever spectrum auctions anywhere--the 
United States has led the world in spectrum policy. The U.S. economists 
who led this ground-breaking work were recently recognized with the 
Nobel Prize highlighting auctions' effectiveness as a tool to allocate 
spectrum and drive innovation. Auctions have proven to be the most 
successful means to assign the interference-protected, exclusive-use, 
flexible rights spectrum licenses that are the bedrock of 5G and mobile 
wireless communications.
    Spectrum auctions have resulted, to date, in over $200 billion in 
revenue for the U.S. taxpayers, and auction proceeds have been used to 
modernize systems for DoD and other agencies that have repurposed 
spectrum for commercial use. Auction proceeds could also be used to 
fund other Congressional priorities, such as funding NG911 and rip-and-
replace of Chinese equipment.
    Congress has never allowed the FCC's authority to lapse before, and 
if we forfeit that authority now, we run the risk of stunting 5G 
growth, impeding U.S. investment and innovation, and ceding global 
leadership in wireless.
    The lessons of the 1997, 2006, and 2012 auction extensions strongly 
favor an approach that ensures that your key congressional role in 
spectrum policy is retained and strengthened by packaging extensions of 
authority with designated future auctions. In each instance, Congress 
mandated specific auctions along with extending the auction authority. 
The last extension directed the FCC to hold the then-record breaking 
AWS-3 auction, the 600 MHz broadcast incentive auction, and the H Block 
auction.
    By linking auction authority with a spectrum pipeline, Congress has 
been a key force in driving U.S. wireless leadership. That is why we 
support the House's bipartisan approach to extend FCC auction authority 
for 18 months. This approach will give all stakeholders the time to 
contribute towards the development a new spectrum pipeline that can be 
combined with a longer-term extension.
    Replenish the Spectrum Pipeline. It is in our national interest to 
identify a spectrum pipeline of bands to be auctioned for exclusive 
use--once the current 2.5 GHz band auction concludes, there will be no 
more 5G spectrum in the pipeline. The Committee is uniquely situated to 
address this shortfall.
    I believe we all have the same objective: we all want a balanced 
spectrum policy that enables government agencies to meet their 
missions--including national defense--while enhancing and expanding 
commercial access. And a balanced approach applies in equal force to 
promoting both licensed and unlicensed solutions.
    But today, that balance is out of whack--particularly in mid-band 
spectrum.
    The Federal government occupies 2/3 of the spectrum between 3.0-8.4 
GHz. We should continue to rebalance government spectrum and commercial 
holdings--all while sustaining the Federal mission. We can find ways to 
repurpose Federal spectrum and use auction proceeds to repackage 
Federal systems into more efficient state-of-the-art technology.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    On the commercial side, our wireless ecosystem thrives with 
licensed networks and unlicensed operations, but we also need a more 
balanced approach between licensed and unlicensed allocations. Today, 
mid-band spectrum designated for unlicensed eclipses licensed spectrum 
by four to one. We need to rectify this ratio and repurpose more 
spectrum for full-power, licensed use to meet the demand for 5G.
    And we know where to start: maximizing the amount of commercial 
licensed spectrum in the 3 GHz, 7-8 GHz, and 4 GHz bands should be our 
immediate focus.
KEY PIPELINE TARGET BANDS

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The lower 3 GHz band (3.1-3.45 GHz) is a top priority. This 350 
megahertz swath, immediately adjacent to other full-power licensed 
spectrum, is an ideal fit to provide large channels and faster 
throughput. We strongly support the Spectrum Innovation Act introduced 
by Chairman Lujan and Ranking Member Thune, which would immediately 
address access to the lower 3 GHz band and we urge its passage. The 
band neighbors existing full-power commercial spectrum and bringing it 
to market in the near term is crucial to our global 5G leadership.
    The 7/8 GHz band (7.125-8.4 GHz) is another prime mid-band resource 
that NTIA has already found to be underutilized. We also recommend mid-
band spectrum in the mid-to upper-frequencies in the 4 GHz band that 
are used today in China and other countries. Of course, good spectrum 
policy requires a mix of spectrum bands leveraging differing capacity 
and coverage characteristics, and we support additional low-band and 
high-band allocations as well. We support Chairwoman Rosenworcel's call 
to investigate the 7-15 GHz range for future commercial access.
    It can take significant time to identify and make spectrum 
available for auction, so it is in our national interest to develop a 
spectrum pipeline that addresses today's needs and plans for the 
future. We should have a new Congressionally approved spectrum pipeline 
before 2024.
    Revitalizing a Unified Government Voice on Spectrum Issues. The 
U.S. Government's spectrum management generally works well, but as we 
are all aware it broke down in the C-Band/altimeter co-existence 
debate. Despite these challenges, I am pleased that two nationwide 
wireless providers launched C-Band 5G in January 2022, with no impact 
on aircraft safety, and the FAA recently announced an agreement for 
full-power C-Band 5G over the next year as airlines upgrade their 
equipment. But as a nation, we can and must do better.
    We need to empower the FCC and NTIA to adjudicate spectrum matters 
and leverage their expertise to address spectrum interference concerns. 
We can't allow other agencies to re-litigate decisions after spectrum 
auctions conclude or try to unilaterally set the terms of future 
commercial spectrum access.
    We welcome NTIA's leadership to administer spectrum use for Federal 
agencies and speak on the Executive Branch's behalf and with a single 
unified voice. Congress could send all stakeholders a clear signal 
about NTIA's critical role by elevating the Administrator's position to 
the Under Secretary level within the Department of Commerce. We also 
support each agency's deeply talented and committed spectrum experts. 
In particular, Congress could advance our Nation's spectrum 
capabilities by providing additional funding to NTIA's Institute for 
Telecommunication Sciences, an outstanding group that conducts 
important research and engineering services to promote new technologies 
and promote more efficient use of the spectrum.
    Fortunately, we have strong leaders in place with FCC Chairwoman 
Rosenworcel and NTIA Administrator Davidson, and I applaud their 
ongoing work to enhance coordination and improve government spectrum 
management.
    This Committee is rightly focused on enhancing and improving our 
Nation's spectrum policy. I did want to call your attention to--and ask 
your help to address--the proposed corporate book minimum tax's impact 
on spectrum holdings. As currently structured, it would frustrate your 
efforts and set back our Nation's spectrum policy. The tax would 
eliminate the deductibility for spectrum licenses even while companies 
would be free to write-off other major business investments. This 15 
percent tax on over $200 billion in auctioned spectrum risks 
undermining our ongoing efforts to close the digital divide; 
jeopardizing America's global competitiveness; and undermining the 
spectrum pipeline we are working so hard to identify. We encourage you 
to treat spectrum licenses no differently than any other asset used in 
our Nation's infrastructure.
    Thank you again for this opportunity to testify, and I look forward 
to your questions.

    Senator Lujan. Thank you very much, Ms. Baker. Next, we are 
going to hear from the honorable Mr. Von Ah.

       STATEMENT OF ANDREW VON AH, DIRECTOR OF PHYSICAL 
        INFRASTRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

    Mr. Von Ah. Chairman Lujan, Ranking Member Thune, Ranking 
Member Wicker, members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be 
here today as you examine Federal agencies' management of 
spectrum and consider reauthorizing FCC's spectrum auction 
authority.
    Regulating and managing the diverse uses of spectrum is a 
responsibility shared by both FCC, which does so for commercial 
and non-Federal uses, and NTIA, which manages Federal use. 
Legislation introduced to reauthorize FCC's auction authority 
seeks to make 200 megahertz of spectrum currently used by 
Federal agencies and others available for 5G mobile 
communications.
    As with past reallocations, a key role for NTIA is to work 
with Federal agencies to examine the suitability of spectrum 
bands to be reallocated from Federal use to non-Federal use 
such as 5G.
    As part of its reallocation efforts, NTIA coordinates with 
FCC and affected Federal agencies to examine the potential 
impact of a proposed reallocation. Any reallocation may require 
existing users to end or modify their spectrum use, update or 
modify existing equipment, move their affected services to 
other bands, or accommodate sharing of the spectrum.
    FCC and NTIA have successfully reallocated and auctioned 
hundreds of megahertz of spectrum across several bands. Some of 
these reallocations are highly complex and can last for many 
years. For example, a recent reallocation in the 3.5 gigahertz 
band took 10 years to complete. Others can be contentious, as 
they may affect several agency's operations or affect critical 
safety systems.
    My statement today is based on two of our recent reports on 
spectrum management activities, one which looked at NTIA 
spectrum reallocation process, and in particular the extent to 
which the agency had developed a planning process to guide its 
efforts. And another looked at--that looked at Federal 
agencies' coordination activities, specifically the extent to 
which NTIA, FCC, and other Federal agencies follow leading 
practices and collaborating on potential spectrum interference 
issues.
    With respect to the reallocation process, at the time of 
our review, we found that NTIA did not have a documented 
process in place to plan its reallocation efforts from start to 
finish. We identified three leading practices for program 
management that could benefit NTIA's efforts, including having 
a program management plan in place and that is updated 
regularly, having a master schedule updated regularly, and 
conducting risk management throughout the life of the program.
    Absent these practices, we found that NTIA and the agencies 
and stakeholders involved may not be sure they are anticipating 
and preparing for the many steps involved in reallocating 
spectrum, have no basis to judge whether work could have been 
performed faster, and may not be able to respond effectively to 
risks as they arise.
    Further, while NTIA is required by statute to ensure that 
Executive Branch views on spectrum related matters are 
effectively presented to FCC, we found NTIA lacks documented 
procedures for doing so, which led to some agencies believing 
their views were not adequately represented in certain 
circumstances.
    Documented procedures could provide clarity on several 
points, such as the level of technical detail that agencies 
should be submitting to NTIA, and the reasons for why an 
agency's comments are or are not incorporated in the final 
submission to FCC. With respect to collaboration, we found that 
the mechanism used by the agencies did not always fully reflect 
leading collaboration practices.
    For example, two key documents, the MOA between FCC and 
NTIA, and the general guidance document that guides technical 
and other preparatory work for international proceedings had no 
defined and agreed upon processes for resolving matters when 
agencies could not do so.
    FCC and NTIA have just announced an updated MOU between the 
agencies that addresses this issue and have also begun meeting 
regularly under their Spectrum Coordination Initiative. We also 
found that the agencies' mechanisms lacked agreed upon 
procedures to conduct and review feasibility and potential 
interference studies.
    As a result, recent reallocation efforts related to 5G, 
such as in the C-band, which involved FAA and the functioning 
of radio altimeters, and in the 24 gigahertz band which 
involved NASA, NOAA, and the functioning of weather satellites, 
had been hampered by a lack of agency consensus on whether 
proposed uses were feasible or would cause harmful interference 
to users in adjacent bands.
    We made a number of recommendations to FCC and NTIA to 
address all of these issues which are outlined in the two 
reports in my written statement.
    The agencies have agreed to work collaboratively and have 
begun to implement our recommendations, as evidenced by the MOU 
released today, which we believe will help create a framework 
where disagreements regarding the reallocation of spectrum can 
be resolved based on agreed upon technical findings.
    Chairman Lujan, this concludes my prepared remarks. Happy 
to answer any questions you or members of the subcommittee may 
have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Von Ah follows:]

Prepared Statement of Andrew Von Ah, Director, Physical Infrastructure, 
             United States Government Accountability Office

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chair Lujan, Ranking Member Thune, and Members of the Subcommittee:

    I am pleased to be here today to discuss our work on spectrum 
management issues. Regulating and managing the diverse uses of spectrum 
are complex and challenging tasks. Considerations include accommodating 
the growing needs of emerging spectrum-dependent technologies, 
protecting existing uses from harmful interference, and balancing the 
concerns of various spectrum users to promote the most efficient and 
effective use of the spectrum resource in the public interest.
    Within the U.S., two agencies share responsibilities for regulating 
and managing spectrum. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has 
responsibility for nonfederal public and private uses, such as wireless 
services provided over commercial mobile networks. The Department of 
Commerce's (Commerce) National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration (NTIA) has responsibility for Federal users, including 
agencies that use it for diverse purposes, such as national defense and 
meteorological satellites.
    Recent domestic and international spectrum-management activities 
have focused on making spectrum available for fifth-generation (5G) 
mobile communications. Since almost all spectrum is currently 
allocated, to make spectrum available for 5G and other commercial 
services, spectrum might need to be reallocated. Accordingly, a key 
spectrum management activity for NTIA is examining the suitability of 
spectrum bands to be reallocated from Federal to nonfederal use, such 
as for 5G.\1\ Reallocations may require existing users in or adjacent 
to bands to end or modify their spectrum use, move their affected 
services to other bands, or accommodate ongoing sharing through 
coordination with other users. As part of its reallocation efforts, 
NTIA coordinates with FCC and affected agencies to examine the 
potential impact of a proposed reallocation on Federal use. Once the 
spectrum is reallocated from Federal to nonfederal use, FCC primarily 
uses spectrum auctions to assign spectrum licenses to the entities that 
submit the highest bid for specific bands of spectrum. FCC's auction 
authority is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2022.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ NTIA assigns spectrum to Federal users, and assigning spectrum 
involves providing Federal agencies with an authorization to use 
specific frequencies. Reallocation is the process by which one or more 
frequency bands--which are specific ranges of frequencies--are 
redesignated for new types of users. Spectrum is allocated, or 
designated, for federal, nonfederal, or shared use.
    \2\ Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 
No. 112-96, Sec. 6405, 126 Stat. 156, 230 (2012). Exceptions exist that 
set later expiration dates for certain uses of FCC's auction authority. 
See 47 U.S.C. Sec. 309(j)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    My statement is based on two of our recently issued spectrum 
management reports, one issued in June 2021 and the other in January 
2022.\3\ This statement addresses the extent to which (1) NTIA has 
developed a planning process to guide its spectrum reallocation 
efforts, and (2) cognizant Federal agencies follow leading practices in 
collaborating on potential spectrum interference issues. In preparing 
the reports, we compared NTIA's spectrum-reallocation-planning 
documents and policies to leading practices for program management we 
previously developed based on the Project Management Institute's (PMI) 
established standards.\4\ Additionally, we reviewed documentation and 
interviewed officials from FCC, NTIA, and other agencies that use 
spectrum; analyzed how various agency mechanisms and processes were 
implemented during recent domestic and international spectrum-
management activities; and compared agencies' efforts to leading 
collaboration practices as well as applicable Federal internal-control 
standards and key elements of a sound research process.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ GAO, Spectrum Management: Agencies Should Strengthen 
Collaborative Mechanisms and Processes to Address Potential 
Interference, GAO-21-474 (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2021); and 
Spectrum Management: NTIA Should Improve Spectrum Reallocation Planning 
and Assess Its Workforce, GAO-22-104537 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 27, 
2022).
    \4\ PMI is a not-for-profit organization that has established 
standards for program and project management that are generally 
recognized as leading practices for most programs and projects. These 
standards are used worldwide and provide guidance on how to manage 
various aspects of projects, programs, and portfolios. The Standard for 
Program Management, Fourth Edition (Newtown Square, PA: 2018).
    \5\ GAO, Managing For Results: Key Considerations for Implementing 
Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: 
Sept. 27, 2012); Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 
Government, GAO-14-704G (Washington, D.C.; September 2014); and 
Employment and Training Administration: More Actions Needed to Improve 
Transparency and Accountability of Its Research Program, GAO-11-285 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    More detailed information on our objectives, scope, and methodology 
for that work can be found in the issued reports. We conducted the work 
on which this statement is based in accordance with generally accepted 
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and 
perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide 
a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
NTIA Spectrum Reallocation
    At the time of our review, we found that NTIA did not have a 
comprehensive documented process in place to plan its reallocation 
efforts from start to finish, even though reallocations are complex and 
can take many years to complete. For example, a recent spectrum 
reallocation in the 3.5 GHz band (referred to as the Citizen's 
Broadband Radio Service or CBRS) took 10 years to complete.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ This reallocation and transition effort involved complex 
technical challenges related to sharing spectrum between the U.S. Navy 
and the private sector, which were only addressed through the 
development of new technologies. The CBRS reallocation effort largely 
concluded in 2020 with auctions of 150 megahertz of spectrum for 
commercial wireless communications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In conducting reallocations, NTIA and advisory groups first work to 
evaluate the potential impact that such a reallocation would have on 
the agencies operating in or near those bands. Subsequently, agencies 
may conduct technical studies, one band at a time, to consider the 
feasibility, cost, and length of time to move existing systems off the 
bands under consideration or develop sharing procedures. Following 
these steps, to fully complete and implement reallocation changes, 
agencies may need to transition their systems off the band(s) or 
otherwise modify their operations.
    When programs involve many steps and stakeholders--such as NTIA's 
spectrum reallocation efforts--the potential risks increase. We 
identified three leading practices for program management that are 
relevant to NTIA's spectrum reallocation efforts. In comparing NTIA's 
approach to reallocations with these best practices, we found that 
NTIA's efforts could have benefited from following such practices, as 
follows:

   Having a program management plan that is updated regularly. 
        Without maintaining a complete plan and regularly updating it, 
        NTIA and other stakeholders, including agencies, may not have 
        assurance that NTIA is anticipating and preparing for the many 
        steps involved in reallocating spectrum.

   Having a reliable, integrated master schedule that is 
        updated on a regular basis.\7\ Without an integrated master 
        schedule to guide reallocation efforts, there is no baseline 
        for NTIA or others to measure NTIA's actual overall spectrum 
        reallocation timeline against, meaning there is no basis to 
        judge whether work could have been performed faster. Further, 
        an integrated master schedule would enhance NTIA's ability to 
        manage tradeoffs among cost, schedule, and scope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ A program's integrated master schedule is the top-level program 
document that defines the individual component schedules and 
dependencies between program components (individual project, site, and 
program level activities) required to achieve the program goal.

   Conducting program risk management throughout the life of 
        the program. Without full consideration of reallocation risks, 
        NTIA may not be able to respond effectively to them as they 
        arise or to help or represent agencies in dealing with them.
Collaboration among Agencies
    With respect to collaboration, at the time of our review, we found 
that the collaborative mechanisms used by FCC, NTIA, and other relevant 
agencies to address potential interference among proposed uses of 
spectrum did not fully reflect leading collaboration practices. Leading 
collaboration practices include, for example, clarifying roles and 
responsibilities and developing written guidance and agreements, and we 
have found that these practices are useful for addressing complex 
issues, such as spectrum management.
    The agencies use various collaborative mechanisms. For instance, by 
statute, FCC and NTIA are required to meet, at least twice a year, to 
conduct joint spectrum planning with respect to various enumerated 
issues.\8\ The two agencies also maintain a memorandum of understanding 
that serves as the main mechanism that guides their overall 
coordination on spectrum management. For domestic matters, the agencies 
coordinate through an NTIA-led committee that provides input to FCC's 
spectrum proceedings. For U.S. participation in international 
conferences regarding the regulation of the global use of spectrum--
known as World Radiocommunication Conferences (WRC)--agencies 
coordinate via a preparatory committee that provides input used to 
develop U.S. positions that the Department of State (State) submits to 
a regional body or directly to the WRC.\9\ A General Guidance Document 
establishes the expectations and process by which the preparatory 
committee operates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 922.
    \9\ Internationally, the International Telecommunication Union--a 
United Nations specialized agency responsible for matters related to 
information and communication technologies--regulates the global use of 
spectrum and hosts international conferences, known as World 
Radiocommunication Conferences, to update the global treaty 
establishing the international regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In examining these and other related coordination activities, we 
found that while the documents that guide coordination between FCC and 
NTIA and the preparatory committee emphasized reaching consensus 
whenever possible, there were no clearly defined and agreed-upon 
processes for resolving matters when agencies cannot do so. 
Additionally, neither the memorandum of understanding nor the General 
Guidance Document had been updated in almost 20 years, though agency 
officials said conditions regarding spectrum management activities have 
changed in that time. Our review of U.S. participation in the 2019 WRC 
showed that these issues affected collaboration. For example, disputes 
among the agencies and the inability to reach agreement on U.S. 
technical contributions challenged the U.S.'s ability to present an 
agreed-upon basis for decisions or a unified position.
Conclusions
    Effective spectrum management is critical given the importance of 
spectrum's role in ensuring the Nation's security and communications. 
NTIA has recently facilitated a complex, multi-stakeholder spectrum 
reallocation to free up spectrum critical for mobile services. However, 
by following program management leading practices related to planning, 
particularly for creating a plan, developing an integrated master 
schedule, and anticipating risks, NTIA could better ensure that 
reallocations are executed in a timely fashion and that potential 
challenges and risks are addressed before they arise. Furthermore, 
while mechanisms exist that facilitate collaboration between FCC and 
NTIA--the U.S. spectrum managers--and Federal users, gaps also exist. 
We have found that these gaps may have contributed to challenges 
experienced during some recent efforts to allocate additional spectrum 
for mobile use and that, in the future, these gaps could contribute to 
challenges in managing spectrum for other uses. In our reports, we made 
several recommendations to FCC and NTIA related to the reallocation 
process and collaboration. Among others, we recommended that:

   NTIA align its spectrum reallocation-planning efforts with 
        leading practices for program management by developing a plan, 
        analyzing risks, and creating and updating a schedule for 
        NTIA's ongoing and future reallocation efforts;

   FCC and NTIA establish clearly defined and agreed-upon 
        processes for making decisions on spectrum-management 
        activities that involve other agencies, particularly when 
        consensus cannot be reached (in consultation with each other 
        and--as appropriate--State);

   FCC and NTIA clarify and further identify shared goals or 
        outcomes for spectrum-management activities that involve 
        collaboration and ways to monitor and track progress (in 
        consultation with each other and--as appropriate--State);

   FCC and NTIA update the FCC-NTIA memorandum of understanding 
        to address identified gaps (such as the lack of clearly defined 
        goals and agreed-upon processes for making decisions) and 
        develop a means to continually monitor and update this 
        agreement (in consultation with each other);

   FCC and NTIA request that State initiate a review of the 
        General Guidance Document (a document that guides U.S. 
        preparation for WRCs)--in consultation with each other and 
        other relevant participants--and update and develop a means to 
        continually monitor and update this document; and

   FCC and NTIA establish procedures to help guide the design 
        (including selection of acceptable assumptions and 
        methodologies) of spectrum-sharing and potential-interference 
        studies intended as U.S. contributions to WRC technical 
        meetings (in consultation with each other, State, and other 
        Federal participants of the U.S. technical preparatory 
        process).

    FCC broadly agreed to work collaboratively with NTIA and State to 
respond to our recommendations. Commerce agreed with our 
recommendations to NTIA. In January 2022, FCC affirmed its commitment 
to implement the recommendations from our June 2021 report and said 
that it had started to take steps to address them. In February 2022, 
NTIA also indicated that it was working on addressing the 
recommendations from our June 2021 report in coordination with FCC and 
State, as applicable. The agencies have not yet implemented our 
recommendations, and we continue to monitor their progress in doing so.
    Chair Lujan, Ranking Member Thune, and Members of the Subcommittee, 
this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to 
any questions that you may have at this time.

    Senator Lujan. Next, we will hear from our fourth witness 
today, Dr. Bazelon. Five minutes for your remarks.

           STATEMENT OF COLEMAN BAZELON, PRINCIPAL, 
                       THE BRATTLE GROUP

    Mr. Bazelon. Thank you. I would like to thank the Committee 
for the opportunity to testify today. Radio spectrum is a 
scarce natural resource owned by all of us, and one way or 
another, used by all of us.
    In fact, it is only through using radio spectrum that we 
create value from it. Smartphones using licensed spectrum, Wi-
Fi and Bluetooth using unlicensed spectrum, and the many public 
missions carried out on Governmental assignments create 
invaluable--incredible value from the scarce public resource.
    All of these valuable uses compete for access to the fixed 
pool of radio spectrum managed by the FCC and NTIA. These 
agencies' goals in managing spectrum is all about making sure 
we get the most out of using it. Their challenge is that all 
spectrum has incumbent users. That is, somebody loses when 
spectrum is reallocated.
    Over time, the easier reallocations have been done, so 
going forward, freeing up large swaths of spectrum will become 
harder, more expensive, and require more creativity. In fact, 
the days of mega auctions of unencumbered bands are numbered 
with decreasingly few opportunities on the horizon.
    New tools, such as incentive auctions and innovative 
sharing regimes will be increasingly important in meeting 
future spectrum needs. When should spectrum be moved to a new 
use? As I have previously testified to Congress, the principle 
of spectrum reallocation says that a band of spectrum should be 
made available for new use is when the value in the new use 
exceeds the cost of making the spectrum available.
    But this guidance, and the costs and benefits it focuses 
on, are not intended to evaluate just economic or market 
values. Unlicensed uses of spectrum create value to society, 
but in a way that does not create bidders with market demand 
for spectrum.
    Whereas mobile broadband network operators regularly bid 
billions of dollars for spectrum licenses. And since 
Governmental uses are difficult to value, the goal for them is 
to make sure they use spectrum efficiently.
    Consequently, a broad set of considerations should inform 
our spectrum policy.
    Budget rules can influence policy, and we are reminded of 
this intersection every time spectrum auction authority is 
renewed. Spectrum auctions have been an important tool in 
getting spectrum from lower valued uses to higher valued uses. 
These auctions only took place because legislation authorized 
them.
    And the CBO score, the budgetary value of reallocating 
spectrum and auctioning it is a focus of most spectrum 
legislation. I have had some experience scoring auctions. This 
is how I started my professional career in the mid 90s at CBO.
    The CBO score is not an estimate of how much the spectrum 
is worth or how much bidders will bid. Nor is it a measure of 
how much a spectrum reallocation will benefit society. Rather, 
it is an estimate of the net effect of the proposed auction on 
the Federal budget.
    The key with score--budget scoring is the legislation is 
credited with the budgetary impact the legislation causes. That 
is, what it changes from current law. Although budget scoring 
rules can create an incentive for legislation to facilitate 
reallocations that might not otherwise happen, budget rules 
will never be a guide to good spectrum policy.
    Budget rules alone will never substitute for thoughtful and 
deliberative spectrum management. So if the easier 
reallocations have already been done and the demands for using 
spectrum continue to grow, what will spectrum management in the 
next decade look like? The goal, continuing to facilitate 
spectrum migrating from lower value to higher value uses will 
not change, but the tools to achieve this will.
    The traditional clear and auction approach will become less 
attractive. Inevitably, with the costs of clearing additional 
bands to reallocate and auction growing, as the easier ones 
have already happened, the net budgetary incentive to legislate 
these auctions is expected to become smaller over time.
    Making existing bands available for new uses without having 
to clear all existing users first, that is, finding ways to 
share bands, may avoid the largest of the clearing costs. If 
new approaches to sharing can preserve a significant portion of 
the value to users, then the net benefits of such approaches 
could remain relatively high.
    Some of these approaches may lead to auctions with a 
budgetary incentive preserved, while others may not. But so 
long as new creative solutions continue to facilitate the more 
efficient use of spectrum, we will all benefit. The future of--
this future of more creative ways to maximize the value we 
derive from the fixed spectrum resource is one of degree.
    That is, the choice for policymakers is not whether or not 
to continue to strive to use spectrum more efficiently, market 
and social pressures require that we do so, but rather the 
degree to which it will happen.
    Preferably, the Legislature and Executive will support a 
cooperative FCC and NTIA to do the long term planning needed to 
more efficiently exploit the benefits of radio spectrum for 
society. In this future of more efficient use of spectrum, 
costs of spectrum based services are lower and consumption of 
those services is higher.
    In a less supportive and cooperative environment, the 
future will see--will still see growth in wireless based 
services, but not as much and with a higher cost. Thank you. 
And I do have tattoos for everybody.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bazelon follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Coleman Bazelon, Principal, The Brattle Group
    I would like to thank Committee Chairwoman Cantwell, Chairman 
Lujan, Ranking Member Thune, and the members of the Committee for this 
opportunity to testify.
    Radio spectrum is a scarce natural resource, owned by all of us 
and, one way or another, used by all of us. In fact, it is only through 
using radio spectrum that we create value from it. Smart phones using 
licensed spectrum, WiFi and Bluetooth using unlicensed spectrum, and 
the many public missions carried out on governmental assignments create 
incredible value from this scarce public resource. All of these 
valuable uses compete for access to the fixed pool of radio spectrum 
managed by the FCC and NTIA.
    Those agencies goals in managing spectrum is all about making sure 
we get the most out of using it. Their challenge is that all spectrum 
has incumbent users. That is, someone loses when spectrum is 
reallocated. Over time the easier relocations have been done, so going 
forward freeing up large swaths of spectrum will become harder, more 
expensive and require more creativity. In fact, the days of mega 
auctions of unencumbered bands are numbered, with decreasingly few 
opportunities on the horizon. New tools, such as incentive auctions and 
innovative sharing regimes, will be increasingly important in meeting 
future spectrum needs.
    When should spectrum be moved to a new use? As I have previously 
testified to Congress, the Principal of Spectrum Reallocation says that 
a band of spectrum should be made available for new uses when the value 
in the new uses exceeds the cost of making the spectrum available. But 
this guidance--and the costs and benefits it focuses on--are not 
intended to evaluate just economic or market values. Unlicensed uses of 
spectrum create value to society but in a way that does not create 
bidders with a market demand for spectrum, whereas mobile broadband 
network operators regularly bid billions of dollars for spectrum 
licenses. And since governmental uses are difficult to value, the goal 
for them is to make sure they use spectrum efficiently. Consequently, a 
broad set of considerations should inform our spectrum policy.
    Budget rules can influence spectrum policy and we are reminded of 
this intersection every time spectrum auction authority is renewed. 
Spectrum auctions have been an important tool in getting spectrum from 
lower valued uses to higher valued uses. These auctions only took place 
because legislation authorized them. And the CBO score--the budgetary 
value of reallocating spectrum and auctioning it--is a focus of most 
spectrum legislation. I have had some experience scoring auctions. This 
is how I started my professional career in the mid 1990s at CBO. The 
CBO score is not an estimate of how much the spectrum is worth or how 
much bidders will bid. Nor is it a measure of how much a spectrum 
reallocation will benefit society. Rather, it is an estimate of the net 
effects of the proposed auction on the Federal budget. The key with 
budget scoring is that the legislation is credited with the budgetary 
impact that the legislation causes--that is, what it changes from 
current law. Although budget scoring rules can create an incentive for 
legislation to facilitate reallocations that might not otherwise 
happen, budget rules will never be the guide for good spectrum policy. 
Budget rules alone will never substitute for thoughtful and 
deliberative spectrum management.
    So, if the easier reallocations have already been done and the 
demands for using spectrum continues to grow, what will spectrum 
management in the next decade look like? The goal--continuing to 
facilitate spectrum migrating from lower value to higher value uses--
will not change, but the tools to achieve this will. The traditional 
clear & auction approach will become less attractive. Inevitably, with 
the cost of clearing additional bands to reallocate and auction growing 
(as the easier ones have already happened), the net budgetary incentive 
to legislate these reallocations is expected to become smaller over 
time. Making existing bands available for new uses without having to 
clear all existing uses first--that is finding ways to share bands--may 
avoid the largest of the clearing costs. If new approaches to sharing 
can preserve a significant portion of the value to new users, then the 
net benefit of such approaches could remain relatively high. Some of 
these approaches may lead to auctions, with a budgetary incentive 
preserved, while others may not. But so long as new, creative solutions 
continue to facilitate the more efficient use of spectrum, we will all 
benefit.
    This future of more creative ways to maximize the value we derive 
from the fixed spectrum resource is one of degree. That is, the choice 
for policy makers is not whether or not to continue to strive to use 
spectrum more efficiently--market and social pressures require we do 
so--but rather the degree to which it will happen. Preferably, the 
Legislature and Executive will support a cooperative FCC and NTIA to do 
the long term planning needed to more efficiently exploit the benefits 
of radio spectrum for society. In this future of more efficient use of 
spectrum, costs of spectrum-based services are lower and consumption of 
those services is higher. In a less supportive and cooperative 
environment, the future will still see growth in wireless based 
services, but not as much, and with higher costs.

    Senator Lujan. Thank you, doctor. I appreciate that. 
Temporary tattoos, although you have alerted everyone that you 
will get them a permanent one if, so they so choose.
    Mr. Bazelon. I will sponsor any permanent----
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that, doctor. Well, again, I 
want to thank each of the witnesses for being available today 
and for offering their important perspective. We all agree that 
developing good spectrum policy directly informs everything, 
from how we innovate and compete globally, to how we access 
public services, to making broadband accessible and affordable 
in places like New Mexico and across the country.
    If we are serious about closing the digital divide, 
developing good policy here must be a top priority. This is 
especially important for New Mexico. Many of my constituents 
rely on wireless technology to connect to broadband at home, 
their businesses, and access critical services. We must ensure 
this resource is used to its fullest potential to serve 
families in states like mine.
    Now, my first question, Mr. Lewis. The FCC's ability to 
conduct spectrum auctions is set to expire in September. When 
we extend that authority, Congress must ensure the Commission 
can begin planning its future slate of auctions and start the 
complex technical evaluations and negotiations with incumbent 
spectrum users immediately. Kicking the can down the road 
benefits no one.
    Mr. Lewis, yes or no, does a longer term extension of FCC 
spectrum auction authority strengthen the FCC and NTIA's 
ability to make spectrum available to connect all Americans to 
high speed, reliable, and affordable broadband services? Can 
you please explain how a longer reauthorization will accelerate 
our mission to connect 100 percent of Americans to high speed, 
reliable, and affordable broadband?
    Mr. Lewis. So, a longer authorization sets up the agencies, 
these are the expert agencies, to do the tough work of 
analyzing what bands, and with what guidelines those bands can 
be rolled out. And it is really important because we have moved 
into a space where there simply are a lot of--not a lot of 
opportunities to get greenfield spectrum.
    And so we have to be efficient, we have to be creative, and 
we need to look at options such as sharing and a good mix of 
licensed, unlicensed, that takes careful planning by the two 
agencies, so that all the stakeholders are taken into account 
when we think about what spectrum bands can be used for, what 
they are--or what they are used best for, and how those 
allocations might be structured.
    Senator Lujan. Appreciate that. Ms. Baker, one of the most 
important tasks facing the FCC and NTIA right now is the 
development of a coordinated strategy on national spectrum 
management. The last few years have shown us the tremendous 
costs when conflicting interests in spectrum are not resolved 
swiftly.
    When construction of critical infrastructure is delayed due 
to poor coordination between Federal agencies, it is the people 
who rely on the infrastructure who suffer. Ms. Baker, yes or 
no, do you recommend Congress invest to increase the 
technological expertise at both agencies so they can more 
efficiently address conflicts when they arise?
    Ms. Baker. Yes, I do. I think that you have two great 
leaders in Chairwoman Rosenworcel and Administrator Davidson. I 
think enabling them to have more experts and more--to show 
their expertise and show that Congress actually wants them to 
be the final arbiter in spectrum disputes would go a long way.
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. And I agree that we must 
ensure Federal agencies have the capacity to do their jobs. And 
both the American public and commercial interests demand 
regulatory certainty and consistency, and I look forward to 
working with our colleagues to ensure NTIA and FCC are up to 
the task of managing this important resource.
    Mr. Von Ah, today NTIA and FCC, well on Monday, they 
announced an updated Memorandum of Understanding strengthening 
these agencies roles as the sole agencies in charge of managing 
our spectrum resource. The agreement also increases 
coordination and addresses many of the challenges for managing 
bands and have a significant Federal agency equity.
    Yes or no, does current statute clearly identify the FCC 
and NTIA as leaders in regulating and managing national 
spectrum use?
    Mr. Von Ah. Yes, it does.
    Senator Lujan. I would like to submit for the record some 
of the reports that you highlighted that indicate the 
improvements that must be made at the FCC and NTIA. And if 
given an opportunity a little later, I want to explore those a 
little bit more. Thank you so much for that. I am going to turn 
this over to Mr. Thune for his questions.
    Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Baker, Mr. 
Lewis, Congress has never let the FCC's auction authority 
lapse. What is the impact if auction authority lapses, and 
would it have an adverse impact on our ability to lead in the 
deployment of next generation communication services? Mr. 
Lewis.
    Mr. Lewis. I agree it would be a shame to see the authority 
lapse. That would be the worst case scenario. I fear that the 
impact would signal that we are not committed to removing or 
even moving away from this structure that has allowed us to 
create greater competition and greater diverse uses of 
spectrum. So that would be a shame. It is also why I am 
advocating for a longer authority to signal that we want to 
continue to do this into the future with the right studies and 
the right data.
    Senator Thune. Ms. Baker.
    Ms. Baker. I appreciate the question, Senator. It would 
cause uncertainty for certain. We don't know about licenses. We 
don't know about auctions. If they are not able to hold 
auctions, then we are not going to be able to continue to build 
out 5G. That has an effect on our global competitiveness. So we 
all want a strong and powerful FCC. It is why I am for an 18 
month extension of auction authority so we don't have to deal 
with the uncertainties that might happen if it lapses.
    Senator Thune. OK. And so very quickly, I mean, I mentioned 
this in my opening statement, but I believe it is critical to 
get the--our wireless ecosystem fueled, which is why I support 
that short term extension as well while we are working on the 
longer term pipeline bill. But very quickly, you support the 
short term extension. Mr. Lewis, you do not, is that correct?
    Mr. Lewis. I prefer a longer extension, even a permanent 
authorization.
    Senator Thune. Yes, I think we all do. But I think we--that 
maybe not be an option. Ms. Baker, could you talk about the 
regulatory certainty provided to commercial entities when 
Congress provides the FCC direction, I should say, on 
particular spectrum bands similar to what we did under the 2012 
Spectrum Act. Are there any other benefits to Congress 
mandating what spectrum bands are auctioned?
    Ms. Baker. Thank you for the question. It is an important 
one. I feel--I think we all want a longer term authority for 
the FCC, but it is important that bands are tied to this longer 
term auction authority. And the reason is exactly because when 
you did the spectrum authority in 2012, you tied three bands to 
it.
    Those bands got done. The next, as we have heard so far 
today, the next bands are going to be more complex. They are 
hard. We have targeted the lower three, as you have in the 
Spectrum Innovation Act. That is our number one goal. It is 
prime mid-band target spectrum. It is adjacent to 3.45.
    It will allow wider channels, better throughput. But we 
would like to see the 4 gigahertz and the 7 gigahertz added as 
well. They are all Government bands. Government has two-thirds 
of the prime mid-band spectrum right now. Not very many 
Government agencies wake up and say, I am going to repurpose my 
spectrum for commercial access today.
    So I think it is really important for Congress to mandate 
those auctions, for us to make sure that we motivate and that 
these auctions actually happen so that we can keep up with the 
rest of the world. I also think it has a side benefit. As you 
specified in the AWS-3 auction, to have the proceeds found 
FirstNet. So, Congress gets to dictate the priorities of the 
proceeds if they specify the bands.
    In the last 2 years, we have had $100 billion in spectrum 
auctions, and none of those have gone to Congressional 
priorities. So I feel pretty strongly that a long term spectrum 
authority is good, but it needs to be tied to specific bands.
    Senator Thune. Good. And could you quickly comment, because 
there is a proposal up here by the Democrats which could be 
voted on as early as this week to tax book income. And I know 
the way that spectrum is treated under the tax code allows it 
to be amortized over a period of years. What impact would this 
tax have on providers of wireless services?
    Ms. Baker. Thank you for the question. It is a really big 
deal for our industry. As currently structured, the tax 
provisions undermine pretty much everything we are talking 
about here. We are building out 5G twice as fast as we built 
out 4G and that is to the tune of $60 billion on infrastructure 
in the last 2 years.
    A 15 percent tax on the $200 billion in spectrum 
investments, that will absolutely--when it is retroactive and 
it is a surprise, it will absolutely slow our build out. It 
will slow our closing the digital divide. It will impact our 
global competitiveness. And certainly it is going to impact our 
spectrum pipeline.
    So, as the Congress has decided that broadband is an 
important infrastructure and put it in the infrastructure bill 
funding, I think that we would very much like to see that any 
technical correction would treat spectrum the same as any other 
infrastructure asset.
    Senator Thune. OK. And presumably, and I think when the tax 
code in the 2017 Act was passed, it was passed with an idea in 
mind, to encourage companies to invest in building out new 
technologies and that sort of thing.
    And so this isn't, as has been suggested, closing a 
loophole. This was a specific design when Congress passed the 
tax bill. Could you speak very quickly, my time I think has 
expired, but there is a lot of funding, as you point out, being 
made available to construct and deploy fixed and mobile 
networks.
    Could you talk about whether or not you support efforts to 
streamline permitting requests so that consumers can reap the 
benefits of these new technologies more quickly? And I, as you 
know, I think, have a bill that would provide for that. But how 
much of an issue is that when it comes to building out these 
new technologies?
    Ms. Baker. As you know, we support your bill strongly. The 
faster we can build these networks, the faster we can bring 5G 
speeds, which are 100 times faster, and attach more devices to 
these networks and lead the world in innovation. So 
streamlining is really important.
    Senator Thune. OK. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. Thank 
you.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you very much. Next, we will recognize 
Senator Fischer. Senator Fischer, you are recognized for your 
questions.

                STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA

    Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate our 
witnesses being here today to discuss critical consideration 
for managing America's airwaves. Ms. Baker, I want you to talk 
a little bit about the value of authorizing the FCC to continue 
holding the public spectrum auctions.
    You addressed that a little bit in Senator Thune's 
questions when you spoke about the FCC and the issues, what 
happens there with certainty, et cetera, if that deadline is 
not met and it is not reauthorized. But can you speak 
specifically to American taxpayers, how would they be 
negatively affected if we don't reauthorize the FCC's spectrum 
authority?
    Ms. Baker. Thank you for the question, Senator.
    Senator Fischer. You know, just to get past all the 
technical stuff and let people know why this is important.
    Ms. Baker. We are still in the middle of the race to 5G at 
this point, and other countries have twice as much mid-band 
spectrum, which is where 5G is being built out across the 
globe. We simply need more to continue to increase our speeds 
and to continue to lead the world in innovation. If the FCC 
can't hold auctions, then we will not have any more spectrum, 
and we will be--we will fall far behind and we will lose our 
global leadership.
    So it will mean quite a lot. In 4G, with our leadership, 
that is why all of the innovative companies are here in the 
United States. It is why Uber and all of the Airbnbs, they are 
all here, and that is because we led the world in 4G. We need 
to do the same in 5G and we need to continue to authorize 
spectrum, and therefore they have to have the authority.
    Senator Fischer. OK, thank you. Mr. Von Ah, looking at the 
overall spectrum management process, it is vital that all 
stakeholders feel fairly represented. Recent spectrum fights 
have shown a lack of trust in the IRAC process, motivating 
certain Federal agencies to want to go around NTIC--or NTIA. 
How can we strengthen the integrity of NTIA's central role in 
managing Federal spectrum needs and regain the trust from the 
Federal stakeholders?
    Mr. Von Ah. Well, thank you for the question, Senator 
Fischer. I think that the MOU announced today goes a long way 
toward solving some of those issues.
    What we were really trying to emphasize is that 
coordination happen early on so that when bands are identified 
for reallocation, Federal agencies through the IRAC process can 
identify concerns early, get the various technical studies 
necessary done in a timely manner so that they can be ready 
when FCC does proceed with a proceeding, and that wasn't really 
happening.
    And we saw that there weren't really--the regular meetings 
between FCC and NTIA weren't really occurring as regularly as 
they had. And so the reaffirmation of those two agencies to 
meet on a quarterly and monthly basis, I think does go a long 
way to getting some of those issues resolved early and 
restoring that trust.
    Senator Fischer. I also serve on the Armed Services 
committee, and at times I worry about losing DOD spectrum, 
putting some of that up for auction, especially when we are 
looking at the advances we see in technology with regards to 
providing our warfighters with what they need, and also to meet 
the threats that this country faces from our adversaries, 
specifically peer adversaries like Russia and China.
    So that is a concern that I have. I know that there has 
been good work in the past with DOD. How can you assure me that 
that good work is going to continue in the future, and we can 
make sure the security of this country is going to continue to 
be our number one priority?
    Mr. Von Ah. I think the MOU is a good first step. I can 
only say that we certainly are interested to see how it gets 
implemented going forward. And so I think ensuring that those 
agencies do follow through on those monthly meetings, that they 
do start to share information around technical studies and 
consider all of the views.
    And one of the recommendations we made that we didn't--that 
is not really part of the new MOU, was that NTIA really explain 
to Federal agencies and have written procedures for how it 
represents Executive Branch views before FCC.
    And so I think that would also go a long way for Federal 
agencies to feel more comfortable about, OK, well, you know, 
you had to make a decision about this, so I understand it is 
more transparent. So I would say that those two recommendations 
would help.
    Senator Fischer. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator. Next, we will hear from 
Senator Rosen. Senator Rosen, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                STATEMENT OF HON. JACKY ROSEN, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

    Senator Rosen. Thank you, Chair Lujan and Ranking Member 
Thune for holding this really important hearing, and of course, 
for the witnesses for being here today. And, you know, the 
importance of spectrum authority for key bipartisan broadband 
programs, it is so important.
    And of course, we know last year Congress passed the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. I was proud to help 
write that. We drafted key broadband provisions in the law, 
including my Middle Mile Broadband Deployment Act and the 
Broadband Equity Access and Deployment, or BEAD program. It 
invests in this last mile infrastructure. This once in a 
lifetime investment in our Nation's broadband infrastructure 
has a potential to finally close our digital divide.
    And so this question is for all of the witnesses. If the 
FCC spectrum authority were to lapse, what impact would that 
have on implementing the broadband provisions of the bipartisan 
infrastructure law, including the BEAD program, the Middle Mile 
Infrastructure program, the Tribal Broadband Connectivity 
program, of course, as well as others? So we can start with Ms. 
Baker, move on to Mr. Von Ah, Mr. Lewis, and then Dr. Bazelon. 
Ms. Baker.
    Ms. Baker. Thank you for your question and thank you for 
all of the work that you did on the infrastructure bill, and 
also for mandating that it was technology neutral. As you know, 
wireless provides--needs two parts for this service. We need 
the infrastructure itself as we build out, which we are 
spending $30 billion a year in building out. But we also need 
spectrum.
    So if the FCC doesn't have the auction authority to provide 
us more spectrum, then we can't--we there is only so much we 
can do. So it is very important for broadband going forward and 
for also implantation of the fixed mobile side of the equation 
for States as they decide how to spend the BEAD revenue, which 
again, 5G home is a really good option to serve rural and 
unserved areas with the BEAD program. So, we look at that as an 
opportunity, but it is important for the FCC to continue to 
auction spectrum.
    Senator Rosen. Thank you. Mr. Von Ah.
    Mr. Von Ah. Thank you for that question. I don't think our 
work really spoke to that issue. I think I would defer to my 
colleagues on the panel to answer your question fully.
    Senator Rosen. Thank you. Mr. Lewis.
    Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for your 
championing the Middle Mile Broadband Deployment Act. I agree 
that I don't think it has a direct impact, but it has the 
complementary effect of, if we don't have the infrastructure, 
then we don't serve rural areas.
    If we don't have the spectrum, then we also can't serve 
rural areas with an all of the above approach to make sure that 
folks are connected. Fiber, wireless, fixed wireless are all 
part of the solution to make sure that everyone is connected.
    Senator Rosen. Thank you. And Ms. Baker. I am sorry, Dr. 
Bazelon, sorry.
    Mr. Bazelon. Thank you, Senator. Spectrum auction authority 
is an integral part of our spectrum management strategy, and it 
would be handicapping the development of the wireless sector to 
not include that for the policymakers, for the FCC going 
forward. And that would bias and handicap the ability to roll 
out those programs.
    Senator Rosen. Thank you. In the minute or so I have left, 
I want to talk about spectrum policy and the impact on the 
wireless work force, because wireless industry has been a 
significant driver of U.S. innovation.
    Investments in wireless deployment have ushered in services 
and devices that millions of Americans have depended on, of 
course, smartphones, wearables, all of our apps. And the 
industry does rely on highly skilled workers to run and 
maintain our networks. And our telecommunications workforce is 
aging.
    There are far too few--far fewer younger employees with 
experience needed to fill these positions in the wireless 
industry. So, Mr. Lewis, in your testimony, you discuss the 
ways the FCC could use auction design to encourage greater 
participation of underrepresented communities in the wireless 
industry.
    So what impact can a strong U.S. spectrum policy have on 
hiring, retaining, training workers in the wireless industry, 
particularly as we look to expand and diversify our work force?
    Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Senator. I believe there is a number 
of ways that it can have an impact, both on the hiring and 
employee side, as well as on the ownership side.
    On the hiring side, you know, setting standards for hiring 
or contracting with vendors can set a high bar for companies 
that are receiving the public airwaves to live up to those 
sorts of standards on--the structure can impact the ownership 
side in promoting competition, making sure that we set up 
auction structures that allow for small, women, and minority 
owned businesses to compete in the auctions through smaller 
license areas or on bidding credits.
    And honestly, we may not have all the ideas, but I am 
interested in finding out what other ideas can be brought 
forward. I celebrate that Chairwoman Rosenworcel recently 
reinstated the Advisory Committee on Diversity and Digital 
Empowerment. And those are the sorts of things that we love to 
see at the FCC, where all stakeholders can come together and 
come up with other tactics to promote diversity.
    Senator Rosen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time 
is up.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator. Next, we will hear from 
Senator Blackburn. Senator Blackburn, you are recognized for 
questions.

              STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

    Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to 
thank our witnesses for being here to talk about this issue 
today. And, Ms. Baker, I want to start with you first. An issue 
that you have heard me talk about regularly is having an 
inventory of all the spectrum that is held by Federal agencies.
    And I would like for you to speak to the importance of why 
we ought to do this as we look at re-upping this spectrum 
authority, and why it would be useful to have this as we look 
at this 5G buildout?
    Ms. Baker. Thank you for the question, Senator. It is an 
important one, and I will go back to that the next spectrum we 
allocate needs to be mid-band, and the mid-band is Government 
spectrum.
    Two-thirds of the mid-band is Government spectrum. So we 
need to know what is there, so an inventory would be very 
helpful so we can know who is using that spectrum efficiently 
and who is not. That will help us as we use the Spectrum 
Relocation Fund that this committee so brilliantly passed and 
has been so useful in relocating agencies. I think as we move 
forward, it is important to know what is there.
    It is important to know what the value is and how it is 
being utilized so that we know what is needed to reallocate it.
    Senator Blackburn. Absolutely. And Mr. Von Ah, I want to 
come to you because she mentioned the different Federal 
agencies that kind of compete, and recently we have seen what I 
would call a lot of sharp elbows between DOD and FCC and NTIA 
and let's see, FAA, and other agencies, DOT.
    So why is it important for us, what are your 
recommendations, to minimize this, and how would an inventory 
help us to minimize these differences between agencies and 
these turf battles that seem to be coming about over this mid-
band spectrum?
    Senator Baker. Thank you, Senator Blackburn, for that 
question. I would just first mention that there is an inventory 
of Federal spectrum uses that NTIA holds. It is the Government 
Master File.
    We have some ongoing work actually that was mandated 
through the last NDAA for us to look at how various systems 
such as that are holding that information and making changes 
and updating--updates to those systems. So I would just mention 
that there is a couple of things that those, that Government 
Master File may not have. It would be things like where the 
spectrum might be used or the time at which that spectrum is 
used.
    And so, you know, that would be information that would be 
useful for reallocating spectrum in certain circumstances or 
finding out places where spectrum could be shared. But I would 
go back to the recommendations that we have in our reports with 
respect to how we can avoid some of these disputes between 
agencies in the future.
    And that really goes to coordination amongst the agencies 
and NTIA engaging with those agencies early on and anticipating 
where FCC might be going with certain proceedings in terms of 
the reallocation toward--to non-Federal uses.
    I think the MOU, again, goes a long way. It is a great 
first step in terms of making those early coordination 
opportunities happen.
    Senator Blackburn. Well, and I think that one of the things 
you mentioned, sharing spectrum, because we do have some 
agencies that leave that spectrum just lying unused for long 
periods of time, and that is a spectrum that could be shared.
    Dr. Bazelon, I want to come to you. I am interested in your 
understanding of the CBO scoring that you mentioned in your 
testimony, and it seems like with your prior career experience 
at CBO, that you would have some helpful insight into how 
scoring might factor into what a potential reauthorization of 
the spectrum option authority would look like.
    Now, when I was in the House and chaired the Comms and Tech 
subcommittee there at Energy and Commerce, and we worked on the 
Ray Baum's Act, it was a big point of conversation how this was 
going to end up being scored. So in your view, what are the 
pros and cons of an 18 month reauthorization as opposed to 
going ahead and doing like a one year or four year 
reauthorization?
    Mr. Bazelon. If the--thank you for the question. If the 
reauthorization for 18 months allows for the work to be done to 
have more directed scoring in a longer bill, that could be 
useful. But we all appreciate that at the end of the day, we 
want the spectrum authority to be there for a long time. Even 
if you extend the authority for 4 years or 10 years, there is 
still an opportunity for Congress to come in and have directed 
reallocations.
    And those reallocations will score positively. They won't 
score as high as they would if they also included the 
authorization aspect of it, but they would still have a 
positive score. And so it is a tradeoff and a judgment as to 
whether or not a longer term is necessary.
    Senator Blackburn. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Blackburn. Next, we will 
hear from Senator Klobuchar. Senator Klobuchar, you recognized 
for 5 minutes.

               STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA

    Senator Klobuchar. Well, thanks so much, Mr. Chairman, and 
thanks for doing this really important hearing. I will start 
with you, Mr. Lewis. So I co-chaired the 911 caucus with 
Senator Burr, and an estimated 244--240 million calls are made 
to 911 centers annually. However, this critical public service 
that we all rely on relies on outdated technologies. In some 
places, it doesn't support text message.
    You can imagine someone in an emergency. Why would they 
think it wouldn't use text message? And Senator Cortez Masto 
and I lead legislation to modernize America's 911 systems to 
handle texts, pictures, videos, other information sent by 
smartphones. Mr. Lewis, in your testimony, you State that 
auction revenues should be invested in public interest 
objectives. Do you agree that 911 infrastructure is in dire 
need of modernization?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes, Senator. And I would include that in the 
list of public interest objectives.
    Senator Klobuchar. OK. Very good. Thank you. And I also 
want to thank you for your support for the American Innovation 
Choice Online Act. Not going to ask questions because it is not 
the subject of our hearing, but I appreciate the support of you 
and many others. Ms. Baker, in your testimony, you highlighted 
the 5G benefit to the U.S. in including improvements to public 
safety. How can 5G and other technologies be leveraged to 
advance public communications?
    Ms. Baker. Thank you for your question and thank you for 
your leadership on 911. We are grateful that you have raised 
these issues of next generation 911 as well as Chairwoman 
Rosenworcel. As far as the funds go, it is up to Congress as to 
how they spend them. But that is certainly a worthy cause, as 
well as Rip and Replace and other things.
    I think the important thing in my job is to continue to 
bring people to the auction so that you can have the funds to 
spend as you wish to improve public safety. As I mentioned in 
AWS-3, we created FirstNet. Opportunities for Congress to spend 
these funds are a great opportunity to enact your priorities.
    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Back to you, Mr. Lewis. 
Chairman Wicker and I joined in introducing the Precision Ag 
Connectivity Act to identify gaps in coverage and encourage 
broadband deployment on farms and ranches. Chairman Lujan has 
done incredible work on broadband.
    A lot of us care a lot about it, and especially when it 
comes to precision Ag, it is going to help us to manage water 
levels, so we don't overuse water and we are seeing so many 
droughts, as you know. How can we make certain our farmers have 
access to modern Internet capabilities, take full advantage of 
these new technologies, and what role does spectrum policy play 
here?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes, Senator. Spectrum policy can play an 
important role in promoting a variety of uses like precision Ag 
in rural areas. We have already seen precision agriculture make 
use of the CBRS spectrum band under the third tier, general 
access authority, which means, you know, they are hopefully 
working in concert with the--under the standards that work in 
concert with the prioritized incumbent prioritization, but 
still makes great use for rural farmers in precision 
agriculture.
    We are also seeing Wi-Fi used in some areas through TV 
white spaces in order to promote precision agriculture. So 
setting up auctions into the future that make sure that sharing 
unlicensed and licensed options are possible, given the lack of 
greenfield spectrum that we have, is critically important.
    Senator Klobuchar. Thanks. Last question, Dr. Bazelon. As 
we develop new technologies to deploy and maintain 5G, it is 
important to find innovative solutions that make the most of 
available spectrum, especially as constraints on spectrum grow. 
In your testimony, you suggest that new technologies are 
important to meeting our future spectrum needs. How can new 
spectrum sharing techniques deliver more consistent service for 
consumers?
    Mr. Bazelon. The new technologies, such as more creative, 
both the more creative incentive auctions, but the database 
managed sharing systems are a new and innovative way to create 
more value from spectrum. It is a way to find those uses of 
spectrum that--different types of uses that can live together. 
Those will be a key feature going forward and making sure that 
we use the spectrum as efficiently as possible.
    Senator Klobuchar. All right. Well, thank you very much. 
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator. And thank you for the 
work that you do every day in this space. Next, we will hear 
from Senator Moran. Senator Moran, you are recognized for your 
questions.

                STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS

    Senator Moran. Chair Lujan, thank you very much. Our four 
panelists, thank you for your presence and your--the words of 
wisdom you are imparting. I first want to State to my 
colleagues on this and the full committee that I am supportive 
of an 18 month auction authority extension to the FCC as 
probably the best path forward, but I also would indicate, and 
you said this Ms. Baker and I think it is important, certainly 
important to me, and I would assume to my colleagues, that I 
want Congress to have a role in determining the spectrum 
auctions and where the proceeds go.
    And as you indicated, we have been left out. I also know in 
our efforts on the bipartisan infrastructure bill, that we were 
unable to get any credit for offsets as a result of the fact 
that Congress had no authority in that regard to how the 
proceeds were spent. My questions generally have been asked by 
my colleagues, but I would turn probably to you, Mr. Von Ah.
    The deployment of reallocated spectrum does not always go 
smoothly, and we have seen that recently with the C-band 5G 
deployment delay. One of the prime issues the GAO found in 
studying NTIA and the FCC spectrum reallocation policies is 
there is inadequate Federal coordination.
    GAO suggests a number of ways to improve Federal 
coordination in both the June 2021 and the January 2022 GAO 
studies. Do those recommendations, any of those recommendations 
account for the issues recently encountered in the C-band 5G 
deployment? If not, how would you recommend preventing similar 
occurrences in the future in terms of agency coordination?
    Mr. Von Ah. Thank you for the question, Senator Moran. It 
is hard to say exactly if it was that issue in the C-band, but 
I think the recommendations can go to some of the issues that 
came up there. There was certainly an opportunity early on for 
FAA to express concerns. Those concerns weren't expressed.
    And so more and earlier coordination between FCC, NTIA, and 
heads up from FCC to NTIA about upcoming proceedings would 
allow NTIA and FAA to explore some of those issues and make 
sort of--bring those issues to light in the FCC proceedings. 
So, yes, I think those recommendations can help.
    Senator Moran. It sounds like the usual communications 
issue that we hear regularly that fails to occur. I sponsored 
an amendment in USICA that would work to ensure that the U.S. 
is a leader in international standards. Again, this probably is 
for you, Mr. Von Ah, including the International 
Telecommunications Union.
    These body set standards for cutting edge technologies and 
a lack of U.S. leadership leaves space for adversarial nations 
to influence standards that will underpin future communications 
technology. My USICA amendment was negotiated into the final 
CHIPS and Science Act agreement that passed Congress last week.
    You mentioned in your written testimony that the lack of 
Federal coordination has hurt U.S. participation at 
international standard setting bodies. Can you elaborate on how 
a lack of Federal coordination hurts the U.S. at these 
important international bodies, and what more Congress can do 
to ensure U.S. leadership in these important spaces?
    Mr. Von Ah. Yes, thank you for that question. So our work 
look specifically at negotiations around the 24 gigahertz band. 
And what occurred there was that there was no technical basis 
for the U.S. positions that were brought to that international 
proceeding. And so that was what undermined the U.S. position, 
at least for, you know, for some.
    So our recommendations were not only for the FCC and NTIA 
to improve their processes, but also for other Federal agencies 
involved to improve their process to ensure that they are 
working with FCC and NTIA to agree on the kinds of technical 
studies and technical work that needs to go into those 
international proceedings.
    And we also made recommendations to FCC and NTIA to update 
the general guidance document, which governs those 
international proceedings, which is a State Department document 
that gives the various players the, you know, what roles they 
should be playing. And so we thought those, both of those 
things should be--the MOU, as well as the general guidance 
document, should be updated.
    Senator Moran. Do you have a sense whether those 
recommendations are being followed?
    Mr. Von Ah. We have not seen that the general guidance 
document has been updated yet. But the MOU has.
    Senator Moran. And would you remind me why it is important 
for us to lead in these international agencies? Maybe that is a 
policy issue for somebody else----
    Mr. Von Ah. Perhaps something that is beyond GAO to opine 
on. Thank you.
    Senator Moran. Anyone?
    Ms. Baker. So I think the issue that we are talking about 
was the 24 gigahertz and the World Radio Conference. And the 
United States took a position, and then later--I guess, looking 
forward, the way that this can be helped is if NTIA is the 
final arbiter on spectrum decisions.
    And when those experts make a decision, and maybe we need 
to allow them to have more expertise, more experts, but when 
they make a decision, it needs to be final. And that is what 
Congress's intent is. There is certainly processes that Mr. Von 
Ah has mentioned that will help. But we need to, once a 
decision has been made, whether it is reallocating the C-band 
for the FCC, because that was commercial type spectrum, or 
whether it is Federal spectrum and NTIA speaks, they need to 
have the final say.
    They need to be the final arbiter. We can't have agencies 
going behind them. All of those discussions need to happen 
before these positions are taken, and it particularly is 
egregious or embarrassing in an international context.
    Senator Moran. I am an appropriator for NTIA and if there 
is ways that we can try to get their attention and influence 
this circumstance, I would be interested in doing so. Thank 
you.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator. Next, we will hear from 
Senator Markey. Senator Markey, you are recognized for your 
questions.

               STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY, 
                U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS

    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Yes, we 
are in a period of enormously rapid change, technologically, 
Artificial intelligence, 5G, Zoom, all of it moving very, very 
rapidly. But thank goodness there are also new developments, 
you know, in how to more efficiently use the spectrum which we 
have and to improve upon our competitiveness. Mr. Lewis, would 
you take that question and just explain how this just recent 
technological changes are making more spectrum available for 
our use?
    Mr. Lewis. Sure, Senator. And it is not just more, it is 
more efficient use of spectrum. You know, we have a market now 
that looks very different, spectrum market that looks very 
different than it did a couple of decades ago or even a decade 
ago. We have updated finer tuned instruments.
    You know, many of the fights we have seen between agencies 
that have been referenced by Senators, you know, could be 
solved with early planning and early engagement, like Mr. Von 
Ah has said, but also making sure that we are looking at 
certain standards for the equipment that is used.
    And this needs to be done in a collaborative basis. We need 
all stakeholders at the table, and it needs to be done early. 
And I think this is why looking to a longer term auction 
authority can send the signal from Congress that that is needed 
and that we want to avoid those types of problems in the 
future.
    Senator Markey. Yes. And unlicensed users are also 
important using the spectrum. They are disrupters, they are 
change agents, they are experimenters, and we have to make sure 
that we carve out the space for them in this spectrum world 
that we live in. I would like to talk as well, if I could, 
about spectrum auctions, which do raise significant amount of 
money, less than in the past, but still a ton of revenues are 
made available.
    And just look over at a real need. You know, during the 
pandemic, we saw that there were 12 to 17 million children who 
did not have the Internet at home. And we were able, and I led 
the effort to put in $7 billion for an emergency connectivity 
fund so that kids at home could have it.
    Now, that funding is starting to run out. So could you look 
at this issue for us, please, Mr. Lewis, and talk about whether 
or not some of these revenues should be dedicated to ensuring 
that we have a permanent emergency connectivity fund so that no 
child, especially black, brown, immigrant children in our 
country, are left behind?
    Mr. Lewis. Sure. And thank you for championing the 
Emergency Connectivity Fund, Senator. I served on my local 
school board for two terms, and we lived that experience with 
students who were not connected in the home, and the homework 
gap is real with the disadvantages that they had with their 
peers. I think there is a number of sources of funding that 
could be used to continue the ECF.
    We have talked about the airways for equity idea where 
auction revenue can be used and set aside for digital equity 
funds that can include some of the educational needs from the 
ECF. Of course, Congress can always--because auctions don't 
come in a regular schedule, Congress could always appropriate 
more money to continue on that work. But certainly it is a 
critical part of making sure that everyone is connected and 
sees the benefits of high speed quality connectivity.
    Senator Markey. Yes. We are going to have kids, you know, 
20 years from now looking back at their childhoods and saying, 
they just left me behind. I wasn't, you know, connected and it 
ended in harming them. So I just think with the revenues that 
are raised, we just have to ensure that we focus on ensuring 
that everyone gets access to it. And that is what the Emergency 
Connectivity Fund is. And I just think that that fund should 
get a part of any revenues.
    And finally, on net neutrality. Everyone wants competition 
and they want, you know, they want to make sure that there is a 
Darwinian paranoia inducing, you know, competition environment. 
And that is what net neutrality is all about as well, Mr. 
Lewis.
    I introduced legislation a couple of days ago with Senator 
Wyden and we have a couple of dozen of our colleagues who have 
signed on. Talk about how important net neutrality is to 
ensuring that we have a marketplace that allows every voice to 
be heard, every competitor to be able to compete?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes, Senator. Net neutrality is important to 
prevent harmful discrimination by the broadband providers that 
serve as gatekeepers to the internet. And, you know, for years 
now, we have had broadband providers committing to adhere to 
those principles. But we still have a number of examples over 
the years.
    While we have not had clearer net neutrality rules, strong 
net neutrality rules, that should be looked at, that should be 
investigated by an expert agency like the FCC. And 
unfortunately, they don't have the authority to do so right 
now. So restoring those rules and that authority, I think, is 
essential.
    Senator Markey. I agree with you. I think net neutrality, 
it just means nondiscrimination. It is just another way of 
saying it. And we just can't allow discrimination on the net. 
And that is the goal in net neutrality. I am going to continue 
with Senator Wyden and so many more of my colleagues in order 
to press for that to become the policy in our country. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for the opportunity to be with you.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator. Next, we will hear from 
Senator Capito. Senator Capito, you are recognized for 
questions.

            STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 
                U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

    Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And 
thank you all for being with us here today. Ms. Baker, I know 
this question has been asked earlier, but I would like to re-
ask with a little bit different flavor. The Tax Foundation's 
book minimum tax model estimates that imposing a 15 percent 
book minimum tax will increase the tax liability for spectrum 
license owners by $7.2 billion over 10 years.
    Like many West Virginians, I am concerned that this tax 
increase will delay closing the digital divide as these 
companies will have fewer dollars to spend on resources to 
deploy 5G and other spectrum capabilities. Is it your 
understanding that enacting the 15 percent minimum tax on book 
income as written in the tax and spend bill will raise taxes on 
spectrum license holders, thereby raising prices on already 
financially stretched--strapped consumers?
    Ms. Baker. It is unhelpful for technical correction so that 
we can consider spectrum auction holdings the same as other 
infrastructure holdings.
    Senator Capito. So it is meaning what? It will raise taxes.
    Ms. Baker. It is--yes, it is both retroactive on the $200 
million--over $200 million that our carriers have spent on 
spectrum, as well as proactively. I think it can harm. They are 
going to have to come up with the tax to pay for what they 
actually already hold that they were not expecting.
    I think that can harm broadband buildout. I think that can 
harm the digital divide and will slow things down. And going 
forward, it will have to be built into spectrum policy when 
companies bid on spectrum.
    Senator Capito. Thank you. Again, Ms. Baker, the 
infrastructure bill set forth a significant investment in high 
speed broadband in the U.S. and as a result, more Americans are 
connecting. How can we ensure, in light of the conversations 
that we have had today, that there is sufficient spectrum to 
allow consumers and businesses to fully utilize these broadband 
networks, particularly, as you know, in my State, a lot of 
unserved and underserved areas?
    Ms. Baker. Well, we really appreciate this committee's work 
on the infrastructure bill and also their emphasis to make it 
technology neutral. It is fiber leaning, and as we are working 
with the States, as they develop their plans individually to 
hope that they realize the power of wireless and they realize 
the power of 5G home broadband, that they can serve unserved 
areas in a sometimes a more efficient way.
    I think, as Mr. Lewis has said, getting broadband to all of 
America is a big challenge and it is going to require an all of 
the above process. And so we just want to be included in 
people's decisions as they make their plans.
    Senator Capito. Yes, I would say this to the entire panel, 
ask this question, is there a question of whether there is 
enough spectrum to handle this, or will it be robust enough for 
the harder areas to reach? How do you all think about this? We 
will start on this end.
    Mr. Bazelon. Thank you for the question. In rural areas, 
the spectrum is not as constrained because there is few users, 
but the same amount there, is a problem of economics, so you 
need to fix the market imperfections that don't allow the 
market to serve those areas.
    Senator Capito. So would that be affordability--excuse me, 
just affordability types of issues, not enough customers, et 
cetera, et cetera?
    Mr. Bazelon. It is both. On one hand, it is affordability. 
So making sure that the infrastructure gets out to the rural 
areas. As we know, a wireless network is actually a wired 
network with a little bit of wireless at the end of it, so you 
need that infrastructure. But also for the companies to invest 
in serving those customers, they need the certainty that the 
customers will be able to afford what is there, so the consumer 
side subsidies as well.
    Senator Capito. Right. So it is not just getting it there, 
it is keeping it there and well maintained.
    Mr. Bazelon. Yes.
    Mr. Von Ah. Thank you for the question. I would agree with 
Dr. Bazelon in terms of the economics of it, but I would just 
also mention that there is, you know, our work has shown there 
is great demands for spectrum kind of all over the board for 
wireless communications, for Internet of Things devices, for 
Federal uses that are evolving. And so, it is, you know, sound 
management and trying to find better and efficient ways, more 
efficient ways to use that spectrum is highly important.
    Senator Capito. Any other additional comments? Go ahead.
    Ms. Baker. I would agree with what has been said here that 
it is a matter of getting it to serve some areas that are just 
very hard serve. And we know West Virginians have some of those 
places and maintaining those networks. We also need more 
spectrum.
    The 2.5 that is at auction right now is very important and 
will be great for rural areas. This is the end of the spectrum 
pipeline. FCC is about to lose spectrum auction authority. We 
need to make sure they continue to have auction authority.
    Senator Capito. Yes.
    Mr. Lewis. I would just add that it is also important that 
we are setting up our spectrum policy to use spectrum 
efficiently and in a timely manner. So setting buildout 
requirements so that rural areas are not left behind. Yes, 
sometimes they can be deprioritized because of the lack of 
concentration of population.
    So setting these sorts of standards, and if spectrum is not 
used or the buildout is not done, then that spectrum can be 
shared or partitioned and given to others. We have seen some of 
this at the FCC recently with their recent ECP decision.
    So making sure that we have those sorts of rules to make 
sure that the broadband, whether it is wired or wireless, is 
rolled out in a quick manner and folks aren't left behind, I 
think is important.
    Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank you all very much.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you so much, Senator. Next, we will 
hear from the Chair of the Full Committee, Senator Cantwell.
    The Chair. I will wait----
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that, Chair Cantwell. You are 
often very generous in that recognition. Next.
    The Chair. Well, I want to hear what they say.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. Next, we will hear from 
the Senator of Colorado, Mr. Hickenlooper. Mr. Hickenlooper, 
you are recognized for questions.

             STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HICKENLOOPER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

    Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, 
Madam Chair, for your generous ceding of time and place. Ms. 
Baker let's start with you. Demand for access to spectrum is 
increasing day by day, as we have discussed. It is a shared 
asset among Federal and non-Federal users, and obviously we 
need to increase research.
    The Institute for Telecommunication Sciences, ITS, as we 
have talked about a little bit, is in Boulder, is a premiere 
research lab for spectrum issues, currently supporting the DOD 
and the FAA to prevent spectrum interference on radar systems.
    So how would modernizing use of funds from the Spectrum 
Relocation Fund support the research mission of ITS to inform 
future spectrum policy decisions?
    Ms. Baker. Thank you for the question. It is a really good 
one. The Spectrum Relocation Fund has done an awful lot and 
really changed the way that we manage spectrum. There is a 
school of thought that says that they can't use the funds for 
future spectrum management like to look to see when they might 
want to reallocate, that it is when the action or the auction 
is already pretty much scheduled and CBO knows that they are 
going to get the money back, that that is when they can use the 
Spectrum Relocation Fund.
    So it might be worth this Committee's time to look at the 
Spectrum Relocation Fund and see if there are improvements that 
agencies could actually look for future relocation, when it is 
not an actual relocation that is going to take place, and those 
funds might be able to be used for that. Interestingly, I also 
understand that while any agency can use spectrum relocation 
funds, NTIA, which actually manages spectrum, it cannot.
    So one way or another, I think, Senator, you know, I am a 
big fan of the ITS labs and that they are a great neutral 
arbiter of spectrum decisions, and that increased funding for 
them would be a good idea for this--as a priority.
    Senator Hickenlooper. All right. But we might almost cost 
an alignment of self-interest. Dr. Bazelon, in your testimony, 
you discussed the value of unlicensed spectrum and the need to 
consider those use cases when creating spectrum policy.
    What are some of the examples of how unlicensed spectrum is 
used to benefit society, and how should the value of unlicensed 
spectrum be factored into reallocation decisions? Don't let 
your superior education force you to overshine these people. 
You went to the same college I did.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Bazelon. Thank you for the question. The wireless uses 
create value, but not in a way that creates demand to pay for 
spectrum at auction. But the social value that consumer--and it 
is worth saying that for the, even for the commercial uses 
where we see the large auction values, the hundreds of millions 
of dollars spent, it is really 10, 20 times that is the value 
of that spectrum that goes to consumers.
    So when you think about the value of the spectrum to 
consumers, significant amounts from licensed but also 
significant amounts from unlicensed. So measuring those, it is 
not just the Wi-Fi devices sold, but it is the value of 
connectivity in your home. It is the value of the Internet of 
Things.
    Devices that are going to end up being on these 
frequencies. And measuring that value to consumers is what 
policymakers should be weighing when they consider whether more 
spectrum needs to go for unlicensed versus license for uses.
    Senator Hickenlooper. And how much.
    Mr. Bazelon. And how much--well they need to go to both, so 
it is a question of how much.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Right. Got it. I agree completely. 
Dr. Von Ah, when you earlier mentioned that you didn't think 
the GAO would opine on that, I think that is the first time--I 
am relatively new here, but the first time I have ever heard 
the GAO not opining on anything. There has never been a 
limitation to their opinion.
    Anyway, the GAO reviews of interagency spectrum management 
and clearly identified the lack of collaboration processes, as 
you have described, and we have discussed already. Disagreement 
over technical assumptions, interpretations of some of the data 
behind those assumptions, especially from vested interests, is 
again natural, has been at the root of these disputes.
    Does the GAO have recommendations to help resolve the 
interagency disputes, such as using in some form independent 
third party analysis?
    Mr. Von Ah. Thank you for the question, Senator 
Hickenlooper. We don't have recommendations specific to using a 
third party, but that is certainly--when we make 
recommendations to the agencies around trying to come together 
to have, you know, a common understanding of what sort of 
technical studies should happen, we leave it to them to sort of 
determine exactly the best way to do that.
    Should they decide that a third party would be a useful 
tool in certain circumstances in terms of an arbiter, I think 
we would be supportive of that. You know, in the new MOU you 
that--between FCC and NTIA, they do talk about a renewed focus 
on sharing technical information. They each would sit on 
advisory committees of the other. And so I think that also kind 
of goes a long way to getting at what you are talking about.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Great. Thank you very much. I 
appreciate it. And you guys have discussed in some of many 
facets of interoperable--interagency collaboration that I think 
that is the point we will all take away from this, or one of 
many points. And I yield back to the Chair.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator. Senator Young. Senator 
Young, you are recognized for questions.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. TODD YOUNG, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA

    Senator Young. Thank you, Chair. Today, the FCC and NTIA 
released a new Memorandum of Understanding on interagency 
spectrum coordination. Ms. Baker, in your testimony, you 
highlight the importance of enhancing interagency coordination 
for spectrum decisions. Director Von Ah, your testimony is 
titled, Improve Planning and Inter-Agency Collaboration Could 
Strengthen Spectrum Reallocation Efforts.
    So, I know that you come at this from slightly different 
directions, and I was wondering whether you could both discuss 
the importance of interagency spectrum coordination and how the 
U.S. can improve current efforts? Mr. Von Ah.
    Mr. Von Ah. Thank you for the question, Senator Young. Yes, 
I mean the importance of the collaboration is to ensure that we 
avoid conflicts that can't be resolved, where you have got 
agencies who are, you know, either, and to be perfectly frank, 
that we are not jeopardizing either national security or public 
safety in terms of the Federal Government use of that spectrum.
    And so understanding the, you know, the ways in which 
reallocated uses might affect users in adjacent bands is 
extremely important. Ensuring that those views are expressed 
and considered as FCC licenses that spectrum and makes rules 
around power levels and other things, I think is also 
important.
    So we are very encouraged by the new MOU. I think it does--
it goes directly to the heart of the recommendations we made, 
and I think it is going to have a great impact on the level of 
collaboration.
    Senator Young. Thank you. Ms. Baker, you have a 
complementary way to look at it.
    Ms. Baker. I agree that the MOU is--well, we have two great 
leaders at the NTIA and the FCC, and this MOU maybe is a 
response to the spectrum coordination, but it is also a real 
testimony to their leadership. It is a good step. It is a good 
first step.
    I do think that there need to be other steps taken. I think 
raising the level of the Administrator's job to an 
Undersecretary shows the power that that office needs to have 
as being the final arbiter in Federal communication, in Federal 
spectrum arguments. We need to empower both of those leaders to 
do their jobs.
    Senator Young. Thank you. Dr. Bazelon and Ms. Baker, when 
Congress gave the FCC auction authority in 1993, it created 
what many of us see as one of the most valuable tools in the 
FCC's toolkit, raising revenue for the Treasury, benefiting 
consumers with critical services and coverage, establishing a 
straightforward method of licensing, and making sure that 
spectrum is held by those who value it most and put it to its 
most productive use.
    Currently, the FCC's auction authority is set to expire in 
less than two months on September 30. Can you both discuss the 
importance of extending the FCC's auction authority, please?
    Ms. Baker. Extending the FCC's auction authority is 
critical. We need them to be powerful and able to do their 
jobs. We are supporting--I like the 18 month extension for a 
couple of reasons and that they are allowed to do their jobs, 
and that it holds the rest of the stakeholders to the fire to 
make sure that we get a spectrum pipeline, because we need to 
have a spectrum pipeline because the rest of the world is 
moving forward.
    So I think it is critical to have, for the FCC to have 
spectrum auction authority. I support them to have a longer 
auction authority, but I think it really needs to be tied to 
specific bands so that we can make sure those auctions happen.
    Senator Young. Thank you.
    Mr. Bazelon. Allowing auction authority to expire would be 
an own goal for our policymakers. It is a critical tool in our 
spectrum management arsenal. The length of time of the 
authority we have to extend it, it creates--the benefit of the 
auctions is it creates the courage to make a reallocation 
happen that wouldn't have happened otherwise by creating the 
budgetary incentives.
    Those incentives will exist whether or not there is a long 
term extension done in the next--whether it is 18 months or 
longer. Of course, there will be a stronger budgetary incentive 
if you do an 18 month and plan the directed reallocations 
afterwards.
    Senator Young. Thank you. And Ms. Baker, just as my time 
comes to a close here, the FCC is currently in conducting an 
auction, so what happens, you know, in terms of the on the 
ground reality, should the auction authority expire?
    Ms. Baker. Well, thank you for your question. It is an 
important auction. We have over 80 bidders, over 80 companies 
bidding on that spectrum, which I think shows how important it 
actually is. And the answer is, we don't know because Congress 
has never let auction authority lapse before. So it creates an 
awful lot of uncertainties. And we know bidders don't need 
uncertainties.
    Senator Young. Very good. Thank you.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator. Next, we will hear from 
the Chair of the Full Committee, Senator Cantwell.

               STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

    The Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Lujan. Thank you 
so much for sharing this important hearing. And what I love 
about this big committee is that we also still get good 
attendance. So, important policy areas. My colleagues and I, 
but particularly Senator Young has worked on a major innovation 
act, and this reminds me, Dr. Bazelon, the same kind of 
question.
    I mean, we said we needed to modernize the U.S. advances in 
chip fabrication. And yet we know a lot of people are like 
Moore's Law is ending. We are not going to keep doubling 
capacity. So what are we going to do? We have to look at new 
substrates, new materials, new ways, like how are we going to 
get more out of the chips at a time when we are trying to say 
we are going to have driverless cars and there are 30 different 
kinds of chips in the car controlling information.
    And then you have Qualcomm and 5G. So everybody is--so it 
is almost nearly impossible to think about all of the, if you 
will, applications. So I am intrigued by your testimony because 
you are saying, we are kind of looking at this from a budget 
perspective, and that is kind of a very narrow perspective.
    So what would you say are the buckets or areas of how to 
take a better look at spectrum need, need, spectrum need, and 
then you can get to these questions that we are kind of down in 
the weeds on, which is, you know, these uses, that use, who 
gets it, what is the prime--but I am not even sure we have a 
picture of what the need is or the possible need out there for 
us and where we might hit demand limitations?
    Mr. Bazelon. So it is a question--we don't use spectrum 
just because it is fun. I mean, I am a ham radio operator, so 
maybe I do in my spare time, but commercially we use it because 
it creates value. So it is about capacity on the wireless 
networks. And capacity can be increased in different ways.
    You can add spectrum to the network. That is what most of 
we have been talking about here. But more efficient 
technologies. 5G creates the throughput on the spectrum much 
more efficiently. It also uses the bands in a more sensible 
way. So you have the longer--the lower bands used for sort of 
longer term communications and the higher bands for, in the 
cities with the larger capacities. You can also invest in 
infrastructure dividing cell sites by reusing the same spectrum 
more often.
    So all of that capacity, that is the way we create capacity 
for all the different needs. Those needs will be there. The 
ones we know about, like the commercial wireless operators that 
most of our networks are designed to meet, but the new Internet 
of Things is going to have a completely different demand 
profile on spectrum. And then there is always the things we 
don't know about yet.
    The Chair. Right. But I mean, this isn't slowing down.
    Mr. Bazelon. No, we--this demand for communications is 
increasing. If you just look at any of the forecasts, Ericsson 
or any of them of usage of wireless data, it is explosive. And 
it is explosive in a way that is not going to be met by just a 
spectrum, more spectrum alone.
    It is many times the amount of usage now that is going to 
require spectrum, is going to require more infrastructure 
investment, and it is going to require using the spectrum and 
technology much smarter than we are today.
    The Chair. And so you are advocating, besides looking at 
budget issues, that some of those people should get whatever 
points or consideration based on that efficiency, or that we as 
a Government should promote that just as we would promote more 
efficiency if we came up with a new material on chips that made 
it, you know, continue to deliver more effectiveness.
    Mr. Bazelon. Yes. When we--in the discussion about 
unlicensed, we want to look at the value created from it. The 
budgetary incentives are, there are certainly not the reason 
for--they are not the first reason for auctions from a spectrum 
policy perspective.
    The point is to get the spectrum reallocated into new uses 
as efficiently as possible, to the extent that auctions create 
the will to do that. That is a good thing, but that is not the 
reason for a spectrum policy in the first place.
    The Chair. But what about applications? I mean, we have 
just heard some debated here, obviously, the 911 and other 
things.
    Mr. Bazelon. The next generation 911, the idea that, you 
know, we have iPhones, but we still have a network that doesn't 
universally use them is just amazing, so, of course, we have to 
invest there. Having the money come from the sector makes a lot 
of sense. Spectrum--value from spectrum gets spent in different 
ways.
    We have talked about the ability to redirect the funds for 
programs such as that. But they also get spent in other ways, 
like when there is a build out requirement, a bidder will bid 
less for the spectrum. So that is the value created from it 
that is being spent in the holistic policy.
    The Chair. I think all these issues are important, like how 
to, you know, figure out interference and how to have a more 
clear role and how to have more predictability. But I do think 
that we have to get a better picture here of how much demand is 
coming at us, because I think it is phenomenal.
    And I think we are going to be pushed to figure out what 
are those uses. And so we are--if we feel like we are seeing 
competition and competitiveness and challenges and people 
throwing this over the rail at you, I guarantee you, it is 
going to be even worse in five or 10 years.
    So figuring out what is a good Government policy, a way for 
us to input on that, and so it is about, again, about those big 
picture uses and what are policies. Besides just GAO and the 
budget, what are policies that would help us as a Nation think 
through this?
    Mr. Bazelon. Yes.
    The Chair. Thank you. My time is up, but if you have 30 
seconds, I am sure if the Chairman would let you.
    Mr. Bazelon. The bigger picture policies issues is, the 
wireless sector is going to continue to grow. We are going to 
have a robust wireless sector in this country in the future. We 
do have a choice as to whether or not it is going to be one 
that is based on low prices, high usage, and more usage, more 
fulfillment of the wireless capacity, or one that is a little 
bit more constrained, higher prices, a little bit less usage. 
But it is still going to grow either way, and it is going to be 
a challenge to meet that demand.
    The Chair. I am sure people are going to say they want 
lower cost but thank you.
    Mr. Bazelon. The preferable one.
    The Chair. Yes. Thank you.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Chair Cantwell. Next, we will 
hear from Senator Lee. Senator Lee, you are recognized for 
questions.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, 
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH

    Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to each of you 
for being here. Ms. Baker, I would like to start with you, if 
that is OK. In your testimony, you describe the FCC, NTIA 
coordinating process, the spectrum coordination that goes on 
there.
    And you noted that in the last few years we have seen 
something of a repeat pattern, a cycle if you will. 
Specifically, you have seen that after ample review and a 
number of measures that have been taken to make sure that all 
parties have been heard and all considerations have been 
evaluated, a last minute objection from a Federal agency, 
usually claiming either some pressing need for public safety or 
in many cases, national security interests, often unarticulated 
national security interests, needs to come in and needs to halt 
the licenses, thus undoing many years of cooperative agency 
action and preparation.
    How do these last minute objections from Federal agencies, 
who are presumably at this point operating outside the IRAC 
process, affect the deployment of wireless networks?
    Ms. Baker. Well, I think in the most recent case with the 
FAA, I think we have seen that it delayed 5G. So far, it has 
delayed the spectrum from coming into fruition, you know, six 
plus months.
    So I think it does delay--I think going forward is an 
interesting case, too, because as we look what the next targets 
are, they are all mid-band, so they are all going to be 
Government spectrum at Government agencies, so we really need 
to figure out how to empower NTIA to be the final arbiter or 
the FCC to be the final arbiter of these decisions and stop the 
process from getting broken at the very end.
    Senator Lee. Yes, no, I think that is right. And we 
desperately need to fix this broken process. Now, I am 
thrilled, of course, at the reports that the FCC and the NTIA 
have updated their Memorandum of Understanding, I think that is 
great. This was a long time coming, but I am glad that we have 
made that progress.
    But I remain concerned that these very large, powerful 
agencies are abusing the process. Perhaps in some instances, 
perhaps even withholding relevant, necessary information from 
public view of, or from the FCC and the NTIA or these very 
important tasks.
    And would you agree with that all these agencies, including 
the really big and powerful ones, really need to cooperate and 
be transparent, both with the FCC and with the NTIA?
    Ms. Baker. Absolutely. When I was at the--when I was when I 
was at NTIA, the IRAC process worked. We need to get it back to 
a place where that works.
    Senator Lee. Now, there may be some who might be tempted to 
conclude, well, now that the MOU has been updated, there is no 
need for Congress to act here. What would be the risks of doing 
that? What would be the risk of us not doing anything as a 
Congress and just resting on the fact that, oh, there is an 
updated MOU?
    Ms. Baker. Well, clearly your opinion is important. And I 
think if you express your opinion, that the FCC and the NTIA 
are the final arbiters in these disputes, that would go a long 
way.
    Senator Lee. Yes. And the stakes are huge. I mean, and you 
have alluded to this in--you note in your testimony, and you 
noted just a moment ago that the United States is trailing our 
competitors in the clearing process, especially for mid-band 
spectrum. And our spectrum pipeline is nearly depleted and--so 
does our current coordination process and our lack of a 
pipeline, what does that do to us in terms of our ability to 
compete globally?
    Ms. Baker. Well, the rest of the world is moving forward, 
so we need to have a pipeline. And I would say that the last 
dispute with the FAA on the C-band took attention away from 
those who were really necessary to put their muscle and elbows 
to the table to get those Government agencies coordinated to 
agree on the bands. So we have lost six to nine months in 
building out that pipeline and getting closer to having 
spectrum that we are going to auction next.
    So it does hurt us. It hurts us globally, but it is, we are 
not--we can still fix it. We can still move forward. I am 
hopeful that, you know, we have made a lot of progress in 
identifying which bands we think are the most viable for the 
next pipeline.
    That is the three, lower three gigahertz that is in the 
spectrum innovation band. It is 4 gigahertz, and it is 7 
gigahertz. It is not going to be easy, but we have made a lot 
of progress. And with your help, with the Administration's 
help, and with some White House help, I think we can get there.
    Senator Lee. Thank you. I appreciate that. My time is about 
to run out, but I want to make clear, I want to make sure that 
Congress does not let FCC's auction authority lapse. And that 
is something that I hope and expect will be coming before the 
Senate. And I hope and expect this committee will have some 
involvement in that.
    And I know you do, too. If Congress fails to address a lot 
of these spectrum policy issues that I have highlighted, I 
worry that that would weaken the U.S. in the long run. And so, 
would you agree with me that in addition to needing this 
reauthorization, we also need some pro-growth spectrum policies 
to be adopted moving forward?
    Ms. Baker. We need to adopt these specific pipeline bands 
with the auction authority so that we make sure they get done. 
They are not going to be easy to get done. We are going to need 
help. And mandating it from Congress to make sure that they 
actually get done. And that will--without a spectrum pipeline, 
the rest of the world moves forward, the innovation goes 
elsewhere, our global leadership is lost.
    Senator Lee. Thank you very much.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator. Senator Cruz, you are 
recognized for your questions.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS

    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to each of 
the witnesses. I appreciate your taking your time to be here 
today to talk about these important issues. As you all know, in 
the Communications Act of 1934, Congress charged the FCC with 
regulating radio operations in the United States in the public 
interest.
    For years, the FCC managed radio operations, that is, who 
was and wasn't allowed to broadcast on the Nation's airwaves in 
a rather clunky, inefficient way via the comparative hearing 
process, or as it became more commonly known through beauty 
contests and lotteries. But then almost 30 years ago, all that 
changed when Congress granted the FCC the authority to use 
auctions to award licenses for the rights to use the radio 
spectrum, so-called ``spectrum auction authority.''
    This market based approach fundamentally transformed how 
spectrum license are valued, distributed, and aggregated, which 
has revolutionized telecommunications. As the FCC put it in the 
1997 report to Congress, ``spectrum auction authority has 
ushered the telecommunications industry into a new era, an era 
in which competition, economic efficiency, and innovation have 
become the watchwords for both the public and private 
telecommunications sectors.''
    The FCC's auctions programs has been a success for the 
American people. The FCC's new auction design and automated 
system have won awards at home and have been studied, licensed, 
or copied worldwide. In most cases, experience has shown that 
FCC auctions have increased competition, provided opportunities 
for new entrants, and benefited customers. In other words, a 
pretty big success.
    Unfortunately, though, in recent years it has felt like we 
are beginning to take steps backward in this area as the number 
and volume of fights over proposed uses for bands of spectrum 
has grown.
    Whether it is the 24 gigahertz fight between NASA, NOAA, 
and the FCC, the 5.9 gigahertz fight between DOT, the auto 
manufacturers, and the Wi-Fi device manufacturers, the 6 
gigahertz fight between the Department of Energy utility 
providers and the Wi-Fi lobby, or most recently, the C-band 
fight between FAA, DOT, Airlines, and the mobile broadband 
providers, these spectrum food fights are all having the same 
impact, injecting uncertainty into the marketplace and 
undermining the auction system, which helped revolutionize not 
just American but global telecommunications over the last 30 
years.
    So my question to each of the witnesses is pretty simple. 
Is the spectrum management process in the United States today, 
broken? And I would like to get an answer from each of you.
    Mr. Lewis. Senator, I think it is hopefully on the mend. 
You know, we are seeing signs today with the announcement of 
the new MOU between the NTIA and the FCC. I think we can ask 
policymakers to continue to take other steps to ensure that the 
discipline needed to address the technical issues that need to 
be examined and determined on how spectrum works and whether 
there is interference is followed.
    We need leadership to make sure that there is a long term 
commitment for those agencies to be the final authority on the 
technical aspects, and then to follow that science and figure 
out, as I think as Chair Cantwell was saying, what is the need 
and how we make sure that all of those needs are met as best as 
possible.
    But we have the technical capability to do it through 
sharing unlicensed and licensed spectrum. But we need the 
cooperation.
    Senator Cruz. Ms. Baker.
    Ms. Baker. Thank you, Senator. It is a good question. I am 
always optimistic, so I wouldn't say it is broken, but I think 
it needs some help and I think it needs some interest from this 
committee. I think--I can't believe, by the way, it is 30 years 
ago for auction already. That is amazing. I do think that a lot 
of these are technological questions, and we need to empower 
more--there are answers.
    These are known answers. And so we need to have, as the MOU 
is doing, having these problems raised earlier and making sure 
we have the resources in a neutral way to test them. That is 
why I support more funding for ITS because it is a Government 
agency that is testing it and right now it is funded usually by 
the people who are in the middle of a spectrum dispute. That 
doesn't seem right.
    It seemed like we could do it a little bit more neutrally. 
I think we need to empower the FCC and NTIA in a much greater 
way. Their leadership needs to be the final say in these 
spectrum disputes. And maybe we look at the Spectrum Relocation 
Fund to see what future reallocations are going to need to do 
so we can do the research earlier.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Von Ah.
    Mr. Von Ah. Thanks for the question, Senator Cruz. I 
wouldn't say it is broken, but it has certainly failed in these 
instances. And in our work, we found, you know, largely these 
processes do work for routine matters. Agencies do feel that 
NTIA appropriately represents them.
    Things get resolved very routinely. But when things get 
more complicated, when there is more agencies involved, when 
there are technical questions that aren't resolved and they 
can't come to agreement, that is where this process breaks 
down, as we have seen over and over again here in the last few 
years.
    And so, you know, we have certainly tried to make 
recommendations to shore that up, and I think the MOU is a good 
first step toward that.
    Senator Cruz. Dr. Bazelon.
    Mr. Bazelon. Our current system is pretty clunky and 
inefficient, but we have to recognize it has gotten us to our 
current system, which is a really incredible wireless broadband 
network and ecosystem. It could do a lot better and going 
forward it is going to be--its clunkiness is going to become an 
increasing impediment to doing the right management.
    Senator Cruz. Thank you. That is helpful.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator. Next, we will hear from 
Senator Sullivan. You are recognized for the questions.

                STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

    Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate 
the witnesses' testimony today on these important but sometimes 
complex issues. So, I want to follow up a little bit on what 
Senator Cruz was talking about and how the system has worked 
but we are starting to see things maybe fraying in some ways.
    The FCC has had a spectrum auction authority since 1993 
without lapsing. What would be the consequences if the FCC 
authority does lapse for the first time in 30, 40 years in 
October, and on the currently ongoing 2.5 gigahertz auction, 
and more broadly? What would the sense of confidence in the 
industry be if there was a lapse?
    Ms. Baker. Well, thank you for the question. As you say, 
FCC authority has never lapsed, so the uncertainty that that 
brings is--I think none of us have the right answers to those 
questions.
    And I think none of us want to find out the answers to 
those questions. It is really important that they have the 
authority to do their job. And while this 2.5 auction is a 
really important auction, and we have a lot of people bidding 
on that spectrum, and it is to be very meaningful across the 
country, what is next is also important.
    This is an ever evolving, dynamic industry. And, you know, 
devices are increasing five times by 2027. We are going to need 
to continue to roll out 5G faster, further, and to do that, we 
are going to need more spectrum. So the FCC is going to have to 
have their authority.
    Senator Sullivan. Let me ask for you and then Mr. Lewis, 
Mr. Bazelon, assuming we pass a short term extension, what do 
you think this committee's priorities should be for a longer 
term bill? I think everybody agrees that we should have a 
longer term bill. I think we do need a short term extension, so 
we don't go into this situation where there is lapsing 
authority. But prioritization on a few key issues. Try to keep 
it somewhat short for the three I just mentioned, on the longer 
term bill.
    Ms. Baker. Absolutely. We need a spectrum pipeline bill to 
go along with the spectrum auction authority and it needs to 
focus on mid-band. Most of the mid-band, two-thirds of the mid-
band is owned by Government, so it is very helpful for Congress 
to specify those bands so that they actually get done.
    When Congress gives a deadline and specifies the bands, it 
gets done. So we think we just have to focus on the 3.1, 3.45 
that is in the Spectrum Innovation Act, and we hope to add 4 
gigahertz and 7 gigahertz to that pipeline bill.
    Senator Sullivan. Mr. Lewis, thoughts on that?
    Mr. Lewis. So a longer term authority even would send a 
great signal from Congress to the agencies. And when I say 
agencies, I mean across the Government, that you have a real 
commitment to doing the work, the trusted science work to 
determine what the spectrum pipeline should look like, and how 
it will work across both Government and private commercial and 
unlicensed use.
    So it is really about certainty. Senator Wicker used the 
term bitter certainty earlier, but bitter certainty is not the 
only certainty that is important. As important as the wireless 
industry is, the providers, certainty for innovators, certainty 
for Government, and the uses of Government and military, and 
certainty for multiple sectors is what I am looking for when we 
suggest that we should have a longer term authority committed 
by the Congress.
    Senator Sullivan. Dr. Bazelon, you have a view on this?
    Mr. Bazelon. Yes, thank you. The spectrum pipeline does 
need to be filled. Many of us can have ideas about what those 
reallocations should be. But as a practical matter, it is only 
once the FCC and NTIA and the Government agencies do the hard 
work to examine what it would actually take to reallocate a 
band of spectrum, is it right for Congress to then direct the 
reallocation? So assuring that the agencies have the resources 
and the ability to make the--to do the planning they need will 
be key to being ready to have that longer term directed 
authority.
    Senator Sullivan. OK. Good. Thank you. Let me turn to Mr. 
Von Ah. You know, a big issue that I think we need, both in 
terms of spectrum, but also now in terms of allocating Federal 
funds that are coming from the Infrastructure Act and other 
areas, is better FCC and NTIA and beyond that Federal agency 
coordination in this area.
    Over the past year, the GAO has released a number of 
reports on Federal spectrum coordination, where you have made 
recommendations to NTIA and the FCC to improve their 
collaboration on spectrum planning. Can you talk on that? And 
then, I am not sure if you saw the five page MOU that was 
signed Monday by Mr. Davidson and Chair Rosenworcel. I think 
that is an important step.
    Can you comment on that as well, if you have seen it, and 
any other coordination issues beyond just spectrum policy? I 
think there is a whole host of areas where the Federal 
agencies, particularly those two agencies, need better 
coordination for more efficient use of our spectrum and 
telecoms industry for Americans.
    Alaskans, we are going to host a summit next week with the 
FCC, NTIA, all up in Alaska, other Federal agencies on this 
issue of coordination, on the deployment of Federal funds, at 
least as it relates to my State.
    Mr. Von Ah. Thank you for the question, Senator Sullivan. 
Absolutely. So, as far as our recommendations, you know, we 
were really looking for the agencies to shore up their 
collaboration processes. So----
    Senator Sullivan. Do you think the MOU helps on that?
    Mr. Von Ah. I do think so. I think it is a great first 
step.
    Senator Sullivan. They read your report and then signed the 
MOU?
    Mr. Von Ah. They certainly read our report. They gave us a 
lot of comments on it.
    Senator Sullivan. Good job, then. Seriously.
    Mr. Von Ah. Yes. One of the recommendations we did make 
that is not really reflected in the MOU was related to NTIA and 
how it coordinates with Federal agencies through the IRAC 
process and otherwise.
    And one of the things that we thought was important was 
that NTIA explain and document its procedures for how it 
represents executive agency views before the FCC to those 
agencies so that they could understand the types of studies 
that they might need to conduct, so that they could understand 
whether their views are being adequately represented or how 
they are being represented, or whether, you know, what sort of 
tradeoffs were made by NTIA in producing a final submission to 
the FCC.
    Because we have seen agencies submit their own comments to 
FCC proceedings, which is not disallowed by any means, but sort 
of reflects the idea that those agencies aren't necessarily 
comfortable with where NTIA was going with it. And so being--
having that ability for NTIA to resolve those conflicts with 
the Federal agencies that it is meant to represent would be 
important too.
    Senator Sullivan. Good. Well, thank you for the work that 
you guys at GAO have done on this. And, Mr. Chairman, I do 
think it is an important issue just beyond the spectrum issue, 
and we can do that in terms of our oversight. But on further 
coordination between these Federal agencies, particularly FCC 
and NTIA, on a whole host of issues, the broadband deployment. 
Funding is another one that I think is really important. Thank 
you.
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that, Senator. And I applaud 
what Senator Sullivan has put together in Alaska during the 
August working period as well. Many of the solutions that Mr. 
Sullivan will discover, create, demand during that conversation 
will help hard to connect states like mine. And I want to thank 
him for that. And we are going to be watching closely because 
we want them in New Mexico next.
    Senator Sullivan. Good.
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that, Senator Sullivan.
    Senator Sullivan. I will give you a readout.
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that, sir. We will conclude the 
hearing. There is a few things I wanted to ask based on the 
conversation that we already had. So with your indulgence, I 
hope not to go on more than 5 to 10 minutes. I want to follow 
up where Senator Sullivan concluded his questioning, Mr. Von 
Ah, with the GAO report.
    As I stated earlier, I do plan on introducing into the 
record two of the reports that were produced by the GAO on the 
urgent need of improvement with coordination and the planning 
process for Federal spectrum management. So we will work with 
you to get that done. I would agree with the testimony here 
today that the updated memorandum of understanding on spectrum 
coordination is real progress. But the work is just beginning, 
and I think that needs to be emphasized.
    While there is a good signature here, a good agreement on 
paper, how this will be implemented and how the agencies will 
work together will be watched by all. And I think there was 
complete bipartisan agreement on every aspect said about that. 
So I know our friends are listening and watching. Won't be 
surprised if any of them are in the room today. I want to 
ensure both agencies, the FCC and the NTIA, are empowered to 
prioritize the public's interest first in spectrum discussion 
as well and how we get there.
    That is building off of the question that our chair asked 
specific to the needs and allocations. Also, Senator Klobuchar 
asked specific to some of these programs on how they should be 
prioritized, as did, I am going to get now in trouble with 
Senator Hickenlooper and Senator Markey, with families and 
communities across the country that did not have connectivity 
during the most recent health scare that the country 
experienced with COVID. But we should anticipate other needs 
down the road.
    And with the promise of the bipartisan infrastructure bill, 
which says that 100 percent of the country will be connected, I 
hope that will be proven true in that 100 percent of the 
country will be connected, and your expertise is going to be 
needed to help provide that guidance and answer questions 
during the implementation.
    Now, GAO's mission here is critical, and I appreciate your 
ongoing work to provide Congress with fact based, nonpartisan 
information that can help improve Federal Government 
performance and ensure accountability for the benefit of the 
American people. And you are going to hear us going back to you 
quite a bit and to the GAO.
    Now, Ms. Baker, in your testimony, you advocate for 
promoting the Administrator of NTIA to the position of 
Undersecretary. Can you quickly explain why that is important 
as a step going forward for everyone to consider?
    Ms. Baker. I think it gives--a number of different reasons, 
so thanks for the question. As a undersecretary, you are at a 
higher level. If you are dealing with a cabinet member and you 
are an assistant secretary, the imbalance is already there. So 
I think elevating the NTIA would help show the authority that 
this Congress believes that they should have in adjudicating 
Federal spectrum disputes.
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that, Ms. Baker. And there is 
some consistency here as well with recommendations that came 
out of the GAO as well. And again, I think this is an important 
area for everyone to pay attention, especially everyone that 
has been frustrated when something breaks down. It could be as 
simple as ensuring that someone that is at the table is truly 
respected by those that are doing work with them. And so I very 
much appreciate that awareness as well.
    Mr. Lewis, from your testimony, I think you will agree that 
first and foremost, our priority must be to put the scarce 
resource to work for all Americans, and I would emphasize all 
Americans. It is Congress's job to determine which solution 
will ultimately serve the public interest. And so in this 
discussion, I want to stress one thing, is that public safety 
must remain a priority.
    The importance of looking at safe and reliable 
communication networks, ensure public safety professionals like 
firefighters, law enforcement, and medical professionals to do 
their job. In my state, like we do in many other states, we 
have a terrible problem with missing and murdered indigenous 
people.
    Someone that may have a mobile device on them but cannot 
make an even 9-1-1 call to be found. A last text that may save 
their life. Solutions to triangulate where that person was the 
last time that they may have pinged off a tower which could 
save their life. This issue is finally getting, and these 
families are finally getting the attention of the Federal 
Government in a way that should have been there from day one, 
without question.
    When I say public safety--especially with the fires that we 
are seeing now in New Mexico, which were started by the Federal 
Government, in this case, a controlled burn that got out of 
control. I am told it is a very low percentage. But 
nonetheless, that low percentage started two fires in our state 
recently that cost people their homes.
    And now we are seeing flooding in those communities that 
are costing people their lives. With that being said, how can 
Congress best ensure the needs of public safety are prioritized 
when developing national spectrum policy?
    Mr. Lewis. There are a number of ways, Senator. Certainly 
the investment of dollars in next generation 911 as a public 
interest value is one that we have highlighted today. An 
emphasis on resiliency and thank you for your leadership on the 
resiliency of communications networks. We need to continue to 
emphasize that so that during natural disasters and other 
emergency situations, folks can trust that the networks will be 
available.
    But also, when we are talking about spectrum policy, the 
importance of setting the rules for prioritization on the 
network. We talked about the success of the CBRS band, which 
has tiers of access prioritization, but making sure that 
emergency communications and other public safety are 
prioritized, especially in emergency--when those emergencies 
happen, I think is an important priority now.
    Senator Lujan. Now, as part of that, Mr. Lewis, outside of 
spending proceeds, your testimony pointed to something that 
caught my attention, and that was with Enhanced Competition and 
Incentive program, that some folks will refer to as ECIP. Now, 
the Chair of the FCC, Chair Rosenworcel, has highlighted how 
this program aims to promote greater competition and increase 
access to advanced wireless services in rural and tribal 
communities. How can Congress expand on ECIP to better promote 
competition?
    Mr. Lewis. Senator, I think a simple mandate to extend the 
same concepts and values that we saw with the recent decision 
at the FCC would go a long way. You know, this is the idea of 
partitioning off spectrum, incentivizing licensed users to--
license services to partition off that spectrum so that 
communities that don't have access can use it when they are not 
using it.
    We have talked about build out requirements and that can 
lead to partitioning or sharing opportunities. So, we just need 
to enshrine that further into the rules on other spectrum 
bands.
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. And while there is a more 
robust conversation taking place with an injection of money 
like we have never seen in the United States to connecting the 
country, this is going to be critical, if in fact assumptions 
that have been made that that still will not connect 100 
percent of the country. In states that are hard to connect--
states where some of those challenges exist with topography and 
geography, this is an area that could provide some solutions.
    I very much appreciate your attention there. Mr. Von Ah, 
one area that has received a lot of attention from myself, 
being proud to represent a state with many pueblo and tribal 
communities, especially pointing to the 2.5 gigahertz auction 
as well. One of the questions that that I have, based on 
conversations with different leaders and those that have been 
hired and responsible for this work, is that sometimes, given 
the short timeline and buildout requirements, there are 
challenges for connection and adoption.
    And with the promise of what 2.5 gigahertz means for 
connectivity and for some of the issues I have already raised, 
what recommendation does GAO have for Congress to ensure tribes 
can take advantage of similar programs in the future?
    Mr. Von Ah. Thanks for that question, Senator. You know, we 
have--there is a recent report that I think is germane here 
that we issued in July, where we looked at tribal broadband 
issues and looked at a number of all the Federal programs that 
could support deployment of broadband on tribal lands. Well, 
let me start by saying that the priority, tribal priority 
window is a great idea. It had hundreds of tribes who had, you 
know, really don't have access to spectrum, were able to get 
licenses.
    And for many of them, in the work that we have done, the 
frustration has been that they got the license, but they didn't 
get any funding along with it, and so they had to sort of 
figure out what to do with it, and with sort of looming 
buildout requirements and timeframes associated with that 
license. The Federal programs that could support that broadband 
infrastructure, they all have their own timeframes in terms of 
the ability for tribes to apply for it.
    And a number of the tribes that got the license are ones 
where they don't necessarily have their own telco that serves 
the tribal lands, or they don't have a utility that could be 
that, or they don't have their own wireless network at this 
point, and so they are hoping for this spectrum to be able to 
create that new wireless network. So they are sort of--they 
have a reliance on whether it be a local telco or consultants 
to help them figure out how to build this network.
    And so our recommendations, really, we are trying to focus 
on the way to leverage Federal programs and Federal investment 
here to address the kinds of problems that you see in the 
barriers you see on tribal lands.
    We made a recommendation to the Executive Office of the 
President to include a tribal focus in a national broadband 
strategy that we have recommended that they develop. And we 
also made recommendations to the Department of Commerce and 
NTIA and their office of Internet Connectivity and Growth to 
bring tribal issues to bear in their ongoing coordination 
efforts with Federal agencies across all of these different 
broadband programs.
    So that is--hopefully those have, at least makes, you know, 
some headway into this very important issue because those lands 
do fall behind in terms of connectivity across the country.
    Senator Lujan. It is my hope that several committees will 
show interest in this particular area, especially given the 
challenges that we know that exist. And with infrastructure 
challenges still in front of the tribes, with easement 
approvals, things of that nature, this is another area where 
getting that connectivity and being able to provide that 
support to more families will help us connect more people, so I 
very much appreciate that.
    I do have a question on the timeline with the House bill, 
and I am hoping to get a perspective from every one of the 
panelists that is able to answer this. 18 months was a time 
period that was included in the House authorization bill. And 
what I heard from some of my colleagues today is that that is a 
position that they support.
    But I also heard from my colleagues that said that they do 
not want to see spectrum expire. That they don't want to see 
this authorization go away. So, as we all work together, my 
question, and I will start with you, Mr. Lewis, is, even though 
I heard your advocacy loud and clear, is are you open to a 
longer period than 18 months?
    As this conversation moves forward and legislation is put 
together, I hope to pass before September 30.
    Mr. Lewis. Definitely open. You heard my preference for a 
permanent authority, but the longer the authority, the better. 
I think it sends the right signal that we are looking for a 
multisector win here for all stakeholders to be at the table, 
and to be at the table in determining what the spectrum rules 
and spectrum pipeline looks like.
    Senator Lujan. Appreciate that. Ms. Baker.
    Ms. Baker. 18 months has been agreed to by the House. I 
like it. I think it makes some sense to--it makes sense to keep 
the stakeholders at the table so that we can have a long term 
spectrum pipeline, which is really going to be important. As 
you have a short term extension to a longer extension, the 
longer extension really needs to have specific bands attached 
to it. I think 18 months is about right. I am not married to 18 
months, so we could certainly see something else work there.
    Senator Lujan. I will fixate on the latter. So not married 
to 18 months. That is room for growth.
    Ms. Baker. There is--yes, yes. But we want to make sure 
that we get a spectrum pipeline. It is important for our global 
competitiveness. So we want to make sure people don't move on 
to another problem and don't come--you know, focus on the fact 
that we have got to get a spectrum pipeline and it is going to 
take a lot of work.
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate it. So I don't want to misstate 
what I fixated on. So, open to a longer period as long as 
partners are at the table and having a conversation about what 
would be included as part of that?
    Ms. Baker. Right. That is correct.
    Senator Lujan. OK.
    Ms. Baker. When you have a longer term spectrum pipeline, 
which we shouldn't wait too long, I would like to see one in 
the next year because the rest of the globe is moving forward 
on 5G, and we need to get our path. But 18 months--longer than 
18 months, you know, 2 years, yes, that is fine.
    Senator Lujan. Or longer?
    Ms. Baker. Let's see what we can do.
    Senator Lujan. I will leave it at that. I will stop 
pushing. I very much appreciate that. That means a lot. Thank 
you. Mr. Von Ah.
    Mr. Von Ah. Yes. So I don't think we would have any--I 
mean, we certainly think reauthorizing spectrum auction 
authority is very important. I mean, we would only say that we 
believe that whatever spectrum is decided on in terms of 
reallocation should go through the existing processes that we 
have in place that NTIA, FCC, and that Federal agencies are 
involved in determining what spectrum can be reallocated 
effectively.
    Senator Lujan. Appreciate it. So, Dr. Bazelon, you are no 
longer at GAO, so----
    Mr. Bazelon. CBO.
    Senator Lujan. CBO. So I hope that we won't get a similar 
answer here, if you will. But what are your thoughts here?
    Mr. Bazelon. I will try. Thank you. We need long-term 
auction authority. We also need a spectrum pipeline. If 18 
months is the only way you are going to get the focus of 
attention to do the work to get the spectrum pipeline, then 
that is a tradeoff that is worth considering. But it does come 
with some cost.
    An 18-month authority creates the problem for the FCC and 
the NTIA that they don't have the authority to plan past that. 
They can't contract beyond 18 months without that authority. So 
it does throw some sand in the gears a little bit. But if it 
ultimately serves the purpose of getting the bigger work of a 
pipeline together, then maybe that is a tradeoff worth 
considering.
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. And that may be where my 
head is. The latter part of the response, which is this is 
tough. This isn't easy policy. It can be messy at times. And 
what I have heard from everyone, all stakeholders that I have 
had the chance to speak to, is what certainty provides and what 
long term deals may be in place, but also in planning.
    Given the bipartisan infrastructure bill, where we are with 
the work that still is happening on existing authorizations, 
the question that I still have as well, what does that mean 
come September 30? Does the authority allow to continue based 
on work they are doing or what happens then?
    And I hope we get an answer to that soon. I am pointing to 
the smart people behind me. But because of the challenges on 
that timeline, that is where my head is. And also understanding 
the work that was done in years past when I was a member of the 
House Energy and Commerce committee and on the sub, and work 
that has continued with colleagues that I now serve with here.
    And there is a difference of opinion, which always means, 
well, how do you work together? And if there is a willingness 
to try to find that, given the right inclusion to what this may 
mean to prevent a September 30 expiration, I know that I am 
speaking in this perfect world, but nonetheless, that is how I 
operate. I am an optimist. And in the same way that we had a 
very respectful hearing today, you have a lot of people that 
are interested here.
    And so how can everyone work together to include these 
ideas but so we can get something adopted? I certainly don't 
want to see a world where September 30 comes and goes and then 
October comes and goes and November comes and goes and then 
December, and then everyone is saying, oh, well, don't worry, 
this will be done in the new year.
    That is the worst thing that we could do. And by the way, 
let's get a fifth FCC Commissioner while we are at it. But I 
know that that may be more divisive than what I am asking for 
on spectrum reauthorization, oddly enough.
    But I am hopeful that we can get there and that we can have 
a full operating Commission, we can get spectrum 
reauthorization, we can move down the road in a way that 
optimizes how people are going to get connected in the country. 
And then one last clean up.
    I wasn't anticipating bringing this up, but since it was an 
area of emphasis by some of my colleagues, this is back to you, 
Ms. Baker. There was some question about changes in the tax 
law. And the question was asked such that will your members get 
hurt, and I know I am paraphrasing here, but not all of the 
members would feel that change, would they, the 15 percent?
    I can ask it a different way. It is my understanding that 
companies that have $1 billion in profit, not revenue but 
profit, are those that would be included in the provisions that 
were discussed by several of our colleagues and being looked at 
with impact to them.
    Ms. Baker. So you saying--is your question, are the smaller 
carriers not impacted by this, this a larger spectrum holding 
issue?
    Senator Lujan. Carriers that do not make $1 billion in 
profit?
    Ms. Baker. I find that any retroactive tax on this critical 
infrastructure input, it doesn't seem like the right policy for 
building out broadband to the rest, to all of America.
    Senator Lujan. Well, I appreciate that. But since the 
question was pointed by my colleagues, and it is my 
understanding, and I can pull the language here, is that it 
would impact for-profit companies with $1 billion in profit. 
That is where that 15 percent would be levied there. With that 
being said, you are 220, 230 members, if I have my math right 
or if I looked at the website correctly.
    Based on my look at the website, six or seven major 
telecommunication companies that have exceeded $1 billion in 
profits, one that did impose a profit that is a member back in 
2020. But nonetheless, that is my understanding of how this 
would get hit.
    I just--I am just looking for that clarification because 
one of the questions was asked such that, when I heard the 
response, it felt like everyone would get hit by the 15 
percent, and I am just looking to clarify the record that way.
    Ms. Baker. And my expert says you are correct. As to my 
assumption is that we are looking at those that are building 
broadband nationwide. So that would be a smaller subsection.
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that.
    Ms. Baker. I am also happy to get back to you on more 
information on that.
    Senator Lujan. Definitely. I look forward to hearing more, 
and we can submit something into the record so that we provide 
you an opportunity to respond to that. And I understand clearly 
what you are saying in that those, the five or six that I have 
identified, there may be others, that exceed that, that they 
provide coverage all over the country.
    But I will make sure we submit that so that when you get a 
chance to be able to answer that thoroughly as well. I 
appreciate that. OK. Well, with that being said, I want to 
thank everyone for their time today.
    I want to thank all the staff that were responsible for 
putting this together, as they always are, and everyone that 
showed an interest in covering this important issue. The record 
will remain open for two weeks to allow everyone to be able to 
submit comments and testimony, and our colleagues as well that 
wish to supplement that. And with that, this hearing is 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 5:09 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to 
                         Meredith Attwell Baker
    Question. In your testimony, you supported a short term extension 
of auction authority with the goal of developing a spectrum pipeline 
bill during that time. Can you discuss what type of work you anticipate 
occurring during the development of such legislation? Why do we need an 
additional 18 months to draft a pipeline bill?
    Answer. There are a number of stakeholders, Federal and commercial, 
involved in determining which spectrum bands can be reallocated for 
commercial, licensed use on an exclusive or shared basis, as well as 
the parameters for such reallocation. I anticipate utilizing this time 
for all of these stakeholders to work to achieve consensus on 
identifying the appropriate bands as well as the timing of 
reallocation, the scheduling of auctions, the technical aspects of 
commercial use of a reallocated band, and the process for relocating or 
otherwise addressing incumbent users of the band. The good news is that 
work has already begun, and we have identified three core bands (the 
lower 3 GHz, 7-8 GHz, and 4 GHz bands) that we believe should be part 
of any final package.

    Question. Those who support a long-term extension to the FCC's 
auction authority may argue that it would not stop Congress from 
continuing work on a spectrum pipeline bill that it could pass sometime 
in the future. Would you please comment on that and share why a 
spectrum pipeline bill should be attached to any long-term extension of 
the FCC's auction authority?
    Answer. By linking auction authority with a spectrum pipeline, 
Congress has long been a critical force in driving U.S. wireless 
leadership. Every multi-year extension of FCC auction authority from 
Congress has also included a mandate of specific spectrum bands. For 
instance, in 2012, Congress directed the FCC to hold the record-
breaking AWS-3 auction, the 600 MHz broadcast incentive auction, and 
the H-Block auction. That's a big reason why the U.S. led the world in 
4G. As we get closer to extending the FCC's auction authority again, 
congressional direction on specific bands to be auctioned, as well as a 
timeline for auctions, provides the certainty to potential bidders, 
incumbent users, and other stakeholders necessary to begin the multi-
year process associated with the reallocation of spectrums bands. By 
contrast, a long-term extension without a spectrum pipeline would risk 
future inaction, regulatory uncertainty, and lost opportunity for 
future innovation and investment.

    Question. The FCC's auction authority will expire on September 30, 
2022, absent Congressional action to extend it. I am concerned that 
expiration of authority will negatively impact not only any ongoing 
auction but also potential future auctions that might occur. What do 
you see as potential impacts of Congress allowing the FCC's auction 
authority to expire this year?
    Answer. Reauthorization of the FCC's auction authority is critical 
to maintaining America's wireless leadership. As a country, we find 
ourselves in the midst of the new 5G economy, and allowing auction 
authority to expire sends the wrong international signal. Since first 
created in 1993, Congress has never allowed the FCC's auction authority 
to expire. If we forfeit that authority now, we run the risk of 
stunting 5G growth, impeding U.S. investment and innovation, and ceding 
global leadership in wireless. In the near term, I am concerned that 
allowing the FCC's auction authority creates a set of new and novel 
issues, specifically as it relates to the FCC's ability to run auction, 
issue licenses, and staff the agency over time. We can avoid these 
questions with a simple extension of FCC authority.

    Question. As you mentioned in your testimony, we are at a point 
where most of the spectrum that we seek to reallocate for commercial 
wireless use will have an incumbent user--in most cases, the Federal 
government. Can you explain why legislation that identifies specific 
bands for reallocation, as well as specific timelines for auction, is 
helpful for making additional spectrum available? Are there additional 
tools that Congress can provide the Federal agencies to encourage 
reallocation?
    Answer. The Federal government controls nearly two-thirds of mid-
band spectrum in the U.S., and commercial operators internationally 
have far greater access than the U.S. industry today. The key is to 
find win-win scenarios for both government users and industry, and 
congressional inquiry and action has repeatedly proven the most 
effective and efficient means to achieve that result. Specifically, 
congressional direction on specific bands to be auctioned, as well as a 
timeline for those auctions, provides certainty to potential bidders, 
incumbent users, and other stakeholders necessary to begin the multi-
year process associated with the reallocation of spectrums bands. While 
the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act of 2004, the Middle Class Tax 
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 
2015 made significant improvements to the relocation process for 
Federal spectrum users, Congress could consider additional incentives 
to compensate Federal agencies for research and planning costs 
associated with utilizing spectrum more efficiently and relocating to 
different bands or sharing existing ones.

    Question. Given the increasing pressure to reallocate federally 
held spectrum and the resulting interference challenges, do you believe 
NTIA has the appropriate engineering resources to manage this 
challenge? Specifically, does NTIA have sufficient engineering and 
technical staff to evaluate potential conflicts among Federal spectrum 
users and identify technologies that encourage the efficient use of 
Federal spectrum?
    Answer. NTIA certainly has the expertise to fulfill its role as the 
manager of spectrum allocated to Federal agencies. I was pleased to see 
NTIA's recent MOU with the FCC which further enhances NTIA's ability to 
represent the Executive Branch in FCC spectrum proceedings, and helps 
resolve disputes concerning the potential impact of commercial use on 
Federal spectrum operations. But I encourage Congress to continue to 
empower both NTIA and FCC to adjudicate spectrum matters and leverage 
their joint expertise to address spectrum interference complaints. It's 
critically important that our country speak with one single unified 
voice on spectrum issues. Additionally, Congress could provide 
additional funding to NTIA's Institute of Telecommunication Sciences, 
an outstanding group that conducts important research and engineering 
services to promote more efficient use of spectrum.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roy Blunt to 
                         Meredith Attwell Baker
    Question. I've served in Congress for a long time, and in my 
service on House Energy and Commerce, and Senate Commerce, have been 
part of a number of legislative efforts to authorize the FCC's spectrum 
auction authority. I've been proud to be part of those efforts, which 
has led to tremendous growth in the wireless industry, and paid 
dividends for the American public in terms of technological progress, 
economic growth, and fighting tech-related security threats.
    And, that's not to mention the contributions of wireless broadband 
during the pandemic, in terms of keeping Americans and Missourians 
connected to school, work, health care, and their friends and families.
    Spectrum auctions have also raised a lot of money, which Congress 
has used in the past for great things, including paying down the 
deficit.
    We're coming up on thirty years of continuous spectrum auction 
authority. We've never let that authority lapse.
    Ms. Baker, how do you look at Congress' role in authorizing 
spectrum auction authority? What is the responsible way for us to 
proceed here? Is an eighteen-month extension reasonable to you?
    Answer. By linking auction authority with a spectrum pipeline in 
the past, Congress has been a driving force in U.S. wireless leadership 
and I thank you for your long commitment and support. Congress has 
previously coupled long-term FCC auction authority extensions with 
directions to conduct specific auctions. Clear congressional direction 
on specific bands to be auctioned, as well as a timeline for those 
auctions, provides the certainty to potential bidders, incumbent users, 
and other stakeholders necessary to begin the multi-year process 
associated with the reallocation of spectrums bands.
    There are a number of stakeholders, Federal and commercial, 
involved in determining which spectrum bands can be reallocated for 
commercial, licensed use on an exclusive or shared basis, as well as 
the parameters for such reallocation. 18-months is a reasonable amount 
of time for these stakeholders to do the hard work necessary to achieve 
consensus to identify bands for reallocation to commercial use, create 
timelines for reallocation, schedule auctions, work through the 
technical aspects of commercial use of a reallocated band, and relocate 
incumbent users of the band. We are ready to start that work today.

    Question. U.S. leadership in wireless technology and 5G is critical 
on many levels, including for our national security. However, one 
obstacle we're currently facing when it comes to wireless security is 
the presence of harmful Chinese equipment in the Nation's 
communications networks.
    Congress appropriated $1.89 billion in 2020 for the FCC's Secure 
and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program to reimburse 
service providers for their efforts to remove and replace harmful 
Huawei or ZTE telecom gear from their networks. However, the program is 
facing a significant shortfall of over $3 billion. In practice, this 
means that providers with fewer than two million subscribers will 
receive a pro-rated amount of 39.5 percent of what they would otherwise 
be eligible.
    If those smaller providers have to foot the tab themselves for 
swapping out Chinese gear, that has consequences for their ability to 
make other investments. If we don't come up with the funding to address 
this shortfall, those providers won't be as capable of investing in 
network upgrades or participating in future spectrum auctions. So, I 
think it's important to address this shortfall.
    This is also just one of the important priorities--along with 
paying down the deficit--that could be addressed through an extension 
of the FCC's spectrum auction authority. And Congress' decision to tie 
spectrum auction proceeds to specific policy priorities is consistent 
with what he have done in the past--some recent examples include using 
auction proceeds to set up FirstNet, the public safety wireless 
network, and to compensate broadcasters for their relocation costs as a 
result of the broadcast incentive auction.
    Ms. Baker, do you agree that it's important for Congress to 
determine where auction proceeds go? Does that weigh in favor of a 
short-term extension rather than a long-term blanket extension?
    Answer. Since 1993, when Congress first gave the FCC auction 
authority, spectrum auctions have raised over $200 billion in proceeds. 
Auctions have brought in over $100 billion in just the last year alone. 
And these dollars have traditionally been used by Congress to fund 
important priorities, like launching FirstNet and modernizing systems 
for DoD and other agencies that have repurposed spectrum for commercial 
use. Auction proceeds could be used to fund other congressional 
priorities, such as funding NG911 and the rip and replace of Chinese 
equipment. Ultimately, it is Congress's decision to determine how 
auction proceeds are utilized.
    The lessons we learned from the auction authority extensions in 
1997, 2006, and 2012 favor an approach that ensures your key 
congressional role in spectrum policy is retained and strengthened by 
packaging extensions of auction authority with designated future 
auctions. I believe a short-term extension of the FCC's auction 
authority provides the time necessary to create robust spectrum 
pipeline legislation that can also deliver significant auction proceeds 
to pay for congressional priorities.
                                 ______
                                 
  Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Marsha Blackburn to 
                         Meredith Attwell Baker
    Question. The race to 6G has already begun. While you briefly 
mentioned 6G in your testimony, I would like to dig a little deeper on 
the implications for 6G. Some industry players have indicated that 6G 
will require new spectrum from sub-1 GHz to sub-THz, or spectrum 
between 90 GHz and 300 GHz. This spectrum is currently used for 
astronomy, earth exploration, satellite services, and meteorology.

   Do you agree that these are the most important bands for 6G?

   How else will the spectrum needs of 6G differ from those of 
        5G and 4G?

   How, if at all, will the spectrum decisions we make today 
        impact the future rollout of 6G?

   What should lawmakers and regulators keep in mind as these 
        decisions are made?

    Answer. As with previous generations of wireless technology, the 
successful evolution and deployment of 6G will depend upon three key 
factors: private investment, the development of standards, and a light-
touch approach to regulation. Importantly, the first factor--private 
investment--is driven primarily by the last two factors--standards 
development and light-touch regulation. Right now, standards bodies, 
like the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (or 3GPP), are developing 
standards for 6G and are addressing some of the questions you posed. In 
the U.S., the 6G effort is being spearheaded by the Alliance for 
Telecommunications Industry Solutions, known as ATIS, through the 
``Next G Alliance,'' an initiative advancing North American mobile 
technology leadership through private sector-led efforts. 6G will 
ultimately build off the foundation from 5G, and action on key mid-band 
spectrum is the most important short-term step Congress can take to 
prepare us for future generations of wireless innovation. We will be 
able to identify potential 6G spectrum upon completion of the 6G 
standards process, and we look forward to working with you on that 
effort. Lawmakers and regulators can help ensure continued U.S. 
leadership in wireless by supporting the largely private sector-led 
standards process and by freeing up the spectrum bands that are 
eventually identified as being optimal for 6G deployment. No doubt, the 
U.S. will be best served in 5G and 6G with a strong licensed commercial 
spectrum position.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                             Andrew Von Ah
    Spectrum Coordination. It is important to make spectrum available 
for mobile services, including 5G. Allocation decisions must also 
consider public safety, national security, science, space, and other 
essential spectrum uses.

    Question 1. What can the NTIA do to ensure that the views of 
Federal agencies are fully considered in future efforts to reallocate 
spectrum? How can Congress ensure that non-commercial interests 
regarding spectrum are represented and considered during the spectrum 
reallocation process?
    Answer. Improving transparency and documentation of how these 
processes work, as a recommendation in our January 2022 \1\ report was 
designed to do, would help all agencies involved better understand 
their roles and expectations. Chaired by NTIA, the Interdepartment 
Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) is the main mechanism by which Federal 
agencies coordinate on domestic spectrum-management activities. FCC 
provides draft proceeding documents to NTIA, which NTIA distributes to 
the IRAC member-agency representatives for review. The member agencies 
review the information and provide their comments to NTIA, which NTIA 
then takes into account as it develops the views it provides to FCC. 
However, our January 2022 report on spectrum reallocations found that 
no documentation of this process exists. In particular, NTIA has not 
developed and disseminated policies and procedures to guide how it 
collects and considers agencies' views to fulfill its statutory 
responsibility to ensure that the executive branch's views on 
telecommunications matters are effectively presented to FCC.\2\ As we 
recommended, NTIA could better communicate agencies' positions by 
documenting and disseminating to Federal agencies policies and 
procedures describing how it collects and considers agencies' views on 
spectrum-related matters to present the views of the Executive Branch 
to FCC. For example, this could provide agencies with clarity on the 
level of technical detail that agencies should submit to NTIA and on 
NTIA's decision making process for concurring with agency comments. To 
ensure Federal agencies' views are represented, Congress could continue 
to conduct oversight over these matters and over implementation of our 
recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ GAO, Spectrum Management: NTIA Should Improve Spectrum 
Reallocation Planning and Assess Its Workforce, GAO-22-104537 
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 27, 2022).
    \2\ See 47 U.S.C. Sec. 902(b)(2)(J).

    Question 2. What can agencies do to reach consensus and ensure 
disagreements over spectrum allocations do not arise at the 11th hour?
    Answer. Reaching consensus requires effective collaboration, and we 
made several recommendations in our June 2021 report aimed at improving 
collaboration.\3\ One of these recommendations in particular was for 
FCC and NTIA to establish clearly defined and agreed-upon processes for 
making decisions on spectrum-management activities that involve other 
agencies, particularly when consensus cannot be reached. The lack of 
clearly defined and agreed-upon processes could prolong reaching 
consensus and create mistrust amongst participants, as we found in our 
June 2021 report on spectrum management collaboration. Additionally, 
regarding a particular spectrum matter we reviewed, we found that some 
agencies did not provide comments until well after FCC was requesting 
comments on its proposed actions, which means they missed early 
opportunities to ensure that FCC received and considered their input 
when it was promulgating rules. Additional clarity from NTIA may better 
enable agencies to respond to FCC proceedings. As we recommended in our 
January 2022 report, NTIA could document and disseminate to Federal 
agencies policies and procedures describing how it collects and 
considers agencies' views on spectrum-related matters to present the 
views of the Executive Branch to FCC. Such documentation could provide 
clarity on anticipated timeframes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ GAO, Spectrum Management: Agencies Should Strengthen 
Collaborative Mechanisms and Processes to Address Potential 
Interference, GAO-21-474 (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2021).

    Impact of Revised MOU. Recently the NTIA and FCC announced an 
updated Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to address the identified 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
gaps in spectrum coordination.

    Question 3. How will this revised MOU help improve the spectrum 
coordination process? Do you have any additional recommendations to 
improve the spectrum coordination process between NTIA and the FCC?
    Answer. The updated MOU is a positive step; how it is executed will 
be important. For example, in our June 2021 report, we recommended that 
FCC and NTIA should establish clearly defined and agreed-upon processes 
for making decisions on spectrum-management activities that involve 
other agencies, particularly when consensus cannot be reached. While 
the new MOU retains language from the previous version that final 
action by either agency does not require approval of the other, it now 
establishes that FCC and NTIA will cooperate to develop and implement a 
process through which concerns of either agency can be escalated, 
noting that--if such concerns cannot be resolved between NTIA's 
Associate Administrator for Spectrum Management and the FCC's Chief of 
the Office of Engineering and Technology--the matter may be referred to 
the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information 
and the FCC Chair for consideration before final action. We made 
several other recommendations in that report that could improve the 
spectrum coordination process for both domestic and international 
matters, including that FCC and NTIA:

   clarify and further identify shared goals or outcomes for 
        spectrum-management activities that involve collaboration and 
        ways to monitor and track progress;

   request that the Department of State initiate a review of 
        the General Guidance Document (a document that guides U.S. 
        preparation for World Radiocommunication Conferences [WRC]) and 
        update and develop a means to continually monitor and update 
        this document; and

   establish procedures to help guide the design (including 
        selection of acceptable assumptions and methodologies) of 
        spectrum-sharing and potential-interference studies intended as 
        U.S. contributions to WRC technical meetings (in consultation 
        with each other, State, and other Federal participants of the 
        U.S. technical preparatory process).
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Raphael Warnock to 
                             Andrew Von Ah
    Education Broadband Service (EBS). A variety of educational 
institutions across the country, including public schools and colleges, 
may own Education Broadband Service (EBS) licenses for the 2.5Ghz 
spectrum band. According to press reports, many of these institutions 
have leased this spectrum. Under the terms of the lease, which may 
include an alleged right of first refusal and/or prohibition against 
sale, these institutions face difficulties selling their license to the 
highest third-party bidder. Several of these institutions have now 
begun a petition process with the FCC for additional clarity regarding 
these licenses' lease terms.

    Question. What was and is the effect of these ongoing disputes on 
efficient spectrum allocation and the success of spectrum auctions, and 
would timely resolution of disputes such as these help the Federal 
government with these goals?
    Answer. Our work has not examined the issues you highlight with EBS 
licenses in the 2.5 GHz spectrum band. However, generally speaking, in 
our June 2021 report, we found examples of how ongoing disputes 
hampered the Federal government's spectrum management activities by 
prolonging reaching consensus and creating mistrust amongst 
participants. Timely resolution of disputes could help the Federal 
government improve its management of this scarce natural resource.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to 
                             Andrew Von Ah
Spectrum Authorization Duration.
    Question. Does an extension of FCC's spectrum auction authority for 
a period of more than 18-months strengthen the FCC and NTIA's ability 
to make spectrum available to connect all Americans to high-speed, 
reliable and affordable broadband services?
    Answer. Our recent work on spectrum management does not speak to 
the impact of a shorter or longer reauthorization. However, it does 
speak to the length of time that reallocations can take--in some cases, 
several years--and the need for effective planning. For example, 
regarding spectrum reallocations in particular, in our January 2022 
report we found that NTIA's approach to reallocations could have 
benefited from following program management leading practices, such as 
having a program management plan that is updated regularly; having a 
reliable, integrated master schedule that is updated on a regular 
basis; and conducting program risk management throughout the life of 
the program.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kyrsten Sinema to 
                             Andrew Von Ah
    FCC Auction Authority. The Federal Communications Commission's 
authority to auction spectrum for commercial use expires on September 
30, 2022. I look forward to working with my colleagues on a bipartisan 
basis to extend the FCC's auction authority before the September 30 
deadline.

    Question 1. What are your recommendations for Congress as we 
consider renewing the FCC's auction authority? Are there any particular 
concerns you feel Congress should address as it considers renewing the 
FCC's authority?
    Answer. Our recent work on spectrum management does not make any 
recommendations to Congress concerning FCC's auction authority. 
However, we do make several recommendations to FCC and NTIA in our June 
2021 and January 2022 reports, and continued congressional oversight 
over these issues could be beneficial as agencies work to implement our 
recommendations.

    FCC and NTIA Coordination. The FCC and National Telecommunications 
and Information Administration (NTIA) share jurisdiction over spectrum 
in the United States. The FCC has the responsibility for allocating 
spectrum for commercial use while NTIA oversees spectrum for use by 
Federal agencies. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has 
documented that the FCC and NTIA have had challenges working 
collaboratively to effectively execute and formulate U.S. spectrum 
policy. The FCC and NTIA announced a new memorandum of understanding 
(MOU) on spectrum coordination on the day of the hearing, though it 
appears both agencies need to take additional measures in order to 
effectively administer domestic spectrum.

    Question 2. What recommendations do you have for the FCC and NTIA 
to better meet our country's spectrum needs? Should Congress codify any 
of GAO's recommendations related to spectrum? Are there additional 
steps Congress should consider in addition to those recommendations 
offered by GAO?
    Answer. FCC and NTIA do have certain coordination responsibilities 
in statute--the MOU states that it establishes a framework for 
compliance with a statutory provision that requires the heads of FCC 
and NTIA to conduct joint spectrum planning on various issues.\4\ 
However, in addition to our recommendation to update the MOU, we made 
several other recommendations in our June 2021 report that could 
improve the spectrum coordination process for both domestic and 
international matters, including that FCC and NTIA:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ See 47 U.S.C. Sec. 922; see also 47 U.S.C. 
Sec. 902(b)(2)(L)(i)(requiring NTIA to develop, in cooperation with 
FCC, a comprehensive long-range plan for improved management of all 
electromagnetic spectrum resources).

   establish clearly defined and agreed-upon processes for 
        making decisions on spectrum-management activities that involve 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        other agencies, particularly when consensus cannot be reached;

   clarify and further identify shared goals or outcomes for 
        spectrum-management activities that involve collaboration and 
        ways to monitor and track progress;

   request that the Department of State initiate a review of 
        the General Guidance Document (a document that guides U.S. 
        preparation for WRCs) and update and develop a means to 
        continually monitor and update this document; and

   establish procedures to help guide the design (including 
        selection of acceptable assumptions and methodologies) of 
        spectrum-sharing and potential-interference studies intended as 
        U.S. contributions to WRC technical meetings (in consultation 
        with each other, State, and other Federal participants of the 
        U.S. technical preparatory process).

    Our recent work on spectrum management does not make any 
recommendations to Congress, though continued congressional oversight 
over these issues could be beneficial as agencies work to implement our 
recommendations.

    Tribal Connectivity. One of the witnesses specifically discussed 
tribal connectivity in their written statement. Arizona is home to 22 
federally recognized Native American tribes, some of which have fallen 
on the wrong side of the digital divide.
    I was a strong supporter of the Tribal Priority Window for the 2.5 
GHz auction. Following the Tribal Priority Window to apply for 2.5 GHz 
spectrum licenses, 11 Arizona tribes received spectrum licenses. These 
licenses will enable tribes to connect more of their members to 
broadband, which is important for applications in telehealth, 
education, and small business.

    Question 3. How can the FCC learn from its successes in the Rural 
Tribal Priority Window to help more Native American tribes in Arizona 
and around the country connect their members, especially those living 
in rural areas?
    Answer. As I mentioned during the hearing, the Rural Tribal 
Priority Window was a great idea for supporting broadband access for 
tribal areas; however, persistent barriers limit tribes' and providers' 
ability and interest in participating in Federal broadband programs. 
FCC, as well as other Federal agencies, have a key role to play in 
addressing these barriers. We issued a report in June 2022 on Federal 
efforts for improving broadband for tribal areas and found that while 
Federal funding has increased access for people living on tribal lands, 
their access continues to lag behind the rest of the country.\5\ We 
reported that issues such as the need for upfront funds and difficult 
application requirements are barriers that tribes and providers face in 
accessing Federal funding. For example, FCC's 2.5 GHz Rural Tribal 
Priority Window featured an opportunity for tribes in rural areas to 
obtain free licenses for spectrum over their tribal lands that could be 
used for broadband but did not include funds for tribes to meet the 
buildout requirements. This created a barrier for some tribes that 
needed additional funding, planning, or training support. Additionally, 
tribes that received a spectrum license from FCC's Rural Tribal 
Priority Window and that deploy certain technologies are required to 
demonstrate reliable signal coverage to 50 percent of the population in 
their geographic service area within 2 years after the license is 
granted. The tribes are also held to final build-out requirements, and 
failure to meet these requirements by the specified deadline results in 
cancellation of the license. An official from a tribally owned provider 
told us that tribes that currently do not provide broadband services 
may find the buildout time-frame requirement too short to identify and 
apply for Federal funds needed to support the buildout. One stakeholder 
that helped numerous tribes apply for the spectrum noted how 
frustrating it would be for tribes to take the time and effort to apply 
for and receive the license just to lose it because they lacked the 
technical expertise to meet the build out requirement. In our report, 
we recommended that the Executive Office of the President address 
tribal needs within a national broadband strategy and that the 
Department of Commerce create a framework within its existing broadband 
initiative for addressing tribal issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ GAO, Tribal Broadband: National Strategy and Coordination 
Framework Needed to Increase Access, GAO-22-104421 (Washington, D.C.: 
June 22, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to 
                             Andrew Von Ah
    Question. The FCC and NTIA just announced an update to the 
Memorandum of Understanding between the two agencies. This update seems 
to make a number of positive changes to the coordination process--
however, the proof will be in the execution of the MOU. One of the 
critical elements of the MOU, which you addressed in your testimony, 
was the development of an agreed-upon resolution process. Can you 
discuss what that might look like and anything more Congress can do to 
encourage productive coordination between the agencies?
    Answer. We agree the updated Memorandum of Understanding is a 
positive step and that how it is executed is important. As you note, we 
have recommended that FCC and NTIA should establish clearly defined and 
agreed-upon processes for making decisions on spectrum-management 
activities that involve other agencies, particularly when consensus 
cannot be reached.\1\ In our June 2021 report on spectrum management 
collaboration, we found that the agencies involved all had different 
understandings of how decisions are made and how disagreements are 
escalated and resolved. For example, agency officials we spoke with 
were unsure how certain decisions were ultimately made, which agencies 
or other entities not typically part of the process were involved, 
which entity actually made the final decisions, or what the scientific 
or technical basis was. While the new memorandum retains language from 
the previous version that final action by either agency does not 
require approval of the other, it now establishes that FCC and NTIA 
will cooperate to develop and implement a process through which 
concerns of either agency can be escalated, noting that--if such 
concerns cannot be resolved between NTIA's Associate Administrator for 
Spectrum Management and the FCC's Chief of the Office of Engineering 
and Technology--the matter may be referred to the Assistant Secretary 
of Commerce for Communications and Information and the FCC Chair for 
consideration before final action. To encourage productive 
coordination, Congress could continue to conduct oversight over these 
issues and over implementation of our recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ GAO, Spectrum Management: Agencies Should Strengthen 
Collaborative Mechanisms and Processes to Address Potential 
Interference, GAO-21-474 (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2021).

    Question. How can NTIA better communicate the position of Federal 
agencies to the FCC? And, how should NTIA handle situations where it 
may not agree with the position of a Federal agency, based on the data 
or engineering analysis?
    Answer. Improving transparency and documentation of how these 
processes work, as a recommendation in our January 2022 \2\ report was 
designed to do, would help all agencies involved better understand 
their roles and expectations. Chaired by NTIA, the Interdepartment 
Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) is the main mechanism by which Federal 
agencies coordinate on domestic spectrum-management activities. FCC 
provides draft proceeding documents to NTIA, which NTIA distributes to 
the IRAC member-agency representatives for review. The member agencies 
review the information and provide their comments to NTIA, which NTIA 
then takes into account as it develops the views it provides to FCC. 
However, our January 2022 report on spectrum reallocations found that 
no documentation of this process exists. In particular, NTIA has not 
developed and disseminated policies and procedures to guide how it 
collects and considers agencies' views to fulfill its statutory 
responsibility to ensure that the executive branch's views on 
telecommunications matters are effectively presented to FCC.\3\ As we 
have recommended, NTIA could better communicate agencies' positions by 
documenting and disseminating to Federal agencies policies and 
procedures describing how it collects and considers agencies' views on 
spectrum-related matters to present the views of the Executive Branch 
to FCC. This would also help NTIA and others understand how situations 
where NTIA may not agree with an agency's position are handled. For 
example, documenting and disseminating these policies and procedures 
could provide agencies with clarity on the level of technical detail 
that agencies should submit to NTIA and on NTIA's decision making 
process for concurring with agency comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ GAO, Spectrum Management: NTIA Should Improve Spectrum 
Reallocation Planning and Assess Its Workforce, GAO-22-104537 
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 27, 2022).
    \3\ See 47 U.S.C. Sec. 902(b)(2)(J).

    Question. Given the increasing pressure to reallocate federally 
held spectrum and the resulting interference challenges, do you believe 
NTIA has the appropriate engineering resources to manage this 
challenge? Specifically, does NTIA have sufficient engineering and 
technical staff to evaluate potential conflicts among Federal spectrum 
users and identify technologies that encourage the efficient use of 
Federal spectrum?
    Answer. In our 2022 report, while we found that NTIA had developed 
a list of key competencies for much of its spectrum management 
workforce--particularly for electronics engineers and 
telecommunications specialists--it had taken only limited action to 
assess whether competency gaps actually were present.\4\ Specifically, 
while NTIA assesses competencies at the individual employee level, NTIA 
does not have a process to aggregate these individual-level data to 
develop organization-wide assessments of whether there are gaps. 
Without such organization-wide assessments, it is not possible to 
comment on the sufficiency of NTIA's engineering staff in its efforts 
to evaluate key spectrum concerns such as inter-agency interference and 
to develop or implement new technologies to streamline spectrum use. In 
the 2022 report, we recommended that NTIA assess for organization-wide 
competency gaps and implement a plan to address any identified gaps. 
NTIA agreed with this recommendation. Several stakeholders we spoke 
with, including industry representatives, stated their general 
impression was that current NTIA staff is appropriately skilled, but 
that there are too few staff to address in a timely manner the full 
range of the Federal government's spectrum considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ GAO-22-104537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ______
                                 
  Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Marsha Blackburn to 
                             Andrew Von Ah
    Question. During the hearing, you said ``there is an inventory of 
Federal spectrum uses that NTIA holds--it's the government master 
file.'' The only version of the NTIA Government Master File (GMF) of 
Federal Frequency Assignments my office could find was made public only 
following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in September 
2021. The GMF was also incredibly convoluted and complex. Can the GMF 
be made easier for stakeholders to access and use? If so, what 
additional authority or resources, if any, does NTIA need from Congress 
to accomplish this?
    Answer. Yes, spectrum information can be made easier to access and 
use. As directed in the National Defense Authorization Act for 2021 
(2021 NDAA), NTIA released its initial plan to modernize and automate 
its information technology (IT) infrastructure related to managing 
Federal spectrum use in September 2021. In that plan, NTIA stated that 
enhancements and improvements planned to its IT systems will improve 
the timeliness of information requests and data accessibility ``through 
new automated services that permit search and retrieval of NTIA 
spectrum information over classified and unclassified networks, within 
data security constraints.'' NTIA requested $25 million in the FY2021 
budget request to begin the modernization of its systems. It is unclear 
if additional authority or resources are needed at this time. We are 
planning to begin a review of NTIA's and other Federal agencies' 
modernization plans, as mandated in the 2021 NDAA, toward the end of 
2022.

    Question. You also mentioned during the hearing that there are some 
things the ``government master file may not have,'' such as ``things 
like where the spectrum might be used or the time at which that 
spectrum is used.'' Is it feasible for NTIA to incorporate these things 
into the GMF? Are there any other things you think would be helpful to 
include in the GMF?
    Answer. Yes, it is feasible to collect and incorporate these data 
in NTIA systems. In fact, NTIA has begun to request more detailed 
information on where and when government agencies are using spectrum in 
certain bands. Specifically, NTIA required additional reporting from 
agencies operating in a limited number of bands (3100-3550 MHz and 
7125-8400 MHz) to include exact times frequencies are being used (i.e., 
months, days, and specific hours of each day) and polygons depicting 
the areas the frequencies cover. However, the enhanced time and 
location data are sometimes difficult for agencies to collect, in part 
due to limitations with information technology systems--some systems do 
not readily enable agencies to collect or share precise schedule and 
geographic data. We have reported that more granular time and location 
data can give NTIA and agencies that use spectrum greater insight about 
the availability of potential spectrum-sharing opportunities.\5\ Our 
planned review of NTIA's and other Federal agencies' modernization 
plans for the systems they use to manage spectrum will delve more 
thoroughly into these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ GAO-22-104537.

    Question. As GAO notes in its 2012 report, ``Spectrum Management: 
Federal Government's Use of Spectrum and Preliminary Information on 
Spectrum Sharing,'' NTIA was expected to develop a new data management 
system to replace the GMF. The transition from the GMF to the new 
Federal Spectrum Management System (FSMS) was expected to be completed 
in 2018. Has the transition been completed? If not, what is the status?
    Answer. NTIA suspended its development of the FSMS several years 
ago. However, NTIA released a plan to modernize and automate its 
information technology (IT) infrastructure related to managing Federal 
spectrum use in September 2021. In developing the plan, NTIA reviewed 
all of its systems to identify those that were outdated or otherwise 
need enhancement, and laid out anticipated enhancement and improvements 
to those systems, such as ``improving the security and automation 
capabilities of the Federal spectrum management system, improving the 
integrity and confidentiality of data, developing advanced analytical 
tools and computer modeling, and reengineering business processes and 
automating workflows.''

    Question. The FCC recently launched a Notice of Inquiry into the 
opportunities and challenges of in-space servicing, assembly, and 
manufacturing, also known as ``ISAM.'' ISAM missions include things 
like satellite refueling, inspecting and repairing in-orbit spacecraft, 
and removal of debris. These activities are at the forefront of 
scientific achievement and are critical to U.S. leadership in space. A 
significant component of the FCC inquiry asked for industry input into 
the role of spectrum in ISAM activities. To what extent has GAO 
examined the spectrum needs of ISAM missions, and what problems do you 
anticipate with respect to spectrum demands?
    Answer. GAO has not conducted any work specific to the spectrum 
needs of ISAM missions, and therefore does not have any views on what 
problems may or may not arise.

                                  [all]